That is part of my point that I was/am trying to get across. What was the cost to the folks who have to go back to the big apple to answer for something that is legal? Certainly something I cannot afford. With the states that have in place the draconian gun laws I don't see nationwide carry coming about. Next question I'll ask is, what about the states that have magazine capacity limits. Is this nationwide carry going to eliminate those laws which would be telling those states to stuff the legislation they passed?? As I see it a WHOLE lot of hurdles to get past for this wonderful thing of nation wide ccw to come about. Trump has a lot more to worry about than getting through congress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump - 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Wildernesshunter
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point at all. Currently, virtually nobody can legally carry in New York City. What you seem to be saying is that, because the NYPD might not be on board with a national carry reciprocity law that would make carry in NYC AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY legal, we shouldn't fix the system, but rather we should leave in place the idiotic patchwork under which we currently try to operate.Don P said:That is part of my point that I was/am trying to get across. What was the cost to the folks who have to go back to the big apple to answer for something that is legal?
That just doesn't make sense to me.
I know you mean well, but...
is called liberty.
And, it has its drawbacks.
One of which is that just as it is not right for others to dictate our choices to us, we should not dictate the choices of others to them.
Any "law", requirement, mandate, order, what ever terms you use, any Federal rule that overrides the will (choice) of the people of a state is fraught with risk. On many levels.
Not the least of which is becoming the people we despise, despite our best intentions.
the idiotic patchwork under which we currently try to operate.
is called liberty.
And, it has its drawbacks.
One of which is that just as it is not right for others to dictate our choices to us, we should not dictate the choices of others to them.
Any "law", requirement, mandate, order, what ever terms you use, any Federal rule that overrides the will (choice) of the people of a state is fraught with risk. On many levels.
Not the least of which is becoming the people we despise, despite our best intentions.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Trump's position paper does NOT call for any federal standards or a "national reciprocity permit" (whatever that is).
Yeah well he also said he was going to get rid of Obama Care, Get a SP for Clinton and send her to jail, Build a border wall not a fence, deport 11M undocumented workers in the country illegally, keep all the Muslims out of the US and a slew of other things that simply are not going to happen much of which he has already backed down from and he isn't even in office yet. By January he might join the Democratic Party and call for a ban on gun shows and assault weapons.
OK I concede we are beating the poor dead horse. With regards too this grand plan to have nationwide CCW, what will happen with the states that are do not have or make it so difficult for folks to get a CCW. NYC. state of NJ, MA, CT, CA IL?? This from 44 AMPI'm sorry, but I don't understand your point at all. Currently, virtually nobody can legally carry in New York City. What you seem to be saying is that, because the NYPD might not be on board with a national carry reciprocity law that would make carry in NYC AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY legal, we shouldn't fix the system, but rather we should leave in place the idiotic patchwork under which we currently try to operate
is called liberty.
And, it has its drawbacks.
One of which is that just as it is not right for others to dictate our choices to us, we should not dictate the choices of others to them.
Any "law", requirement, mandate, order, what ever terms you use, any Federal rule that overrides the will (choice) of the people of a state is fraught with risk. On many levels.
Not the least of which is becoming the people we despise, despite our best intentions
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I respectfully disagree.44 AMP said:is called liberty.
And, it has its drawbacks.
One of which is that just as it is not right for others to dictate our choices to us, we should not dictate the choices of others to them.
Any "law", requirement, mandate, order, what ever terms you use, any Federal rule that overrides the will (choice) of the people of a state is fraught with risk. On many levels.
Not the least of which is becoming the people we despise, despite our best intentions.
My starting point is the Constitution. The Second Amendment says we have a right to keep and bear arms, and that this right "shall not be infringed." Any permitting or licensing scheme attached to a right is an infringement, and is therefore (IMHO) unlawful under the Constitution.
But ... we are where we are. 49 out of 50 states do require a permit or license in order to exercise the constitutional right to bear arms. So we have permits. Then we look at Article IV of the Constitution.
State licensing/permitting schemes are in the statutes of the respective states. And how are statutes generated? By public acts of the respective legislatures. So the issuance of a carry permit by State A, through whatever governmental agency/entity handles it (in Florida it's the Department of Agriculture, in Pennsylvania it's through county sheriffs, in New Hampshire it's through the State Police) is a "public act." So, on a constitutional basis, it seems obvious (again, to me) that each state should be required under the Constitution to honor carry licenses and permits issued by the other states.Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
And, finally, there's the equal protection provision of the Constitution. How is there anything "equal" about a system in which a person with a carry license/permit from State C can have that permit honored in 17 other states, but it's not honored in 32 states?
That's not "liberty," that's chaos. Real liberty would be true, honest-to-God national, constitutional carry. That's highly unlikely to roll around within what remains of my lifetime. Next best is uniform, national reciprocal recognition of each state's carry licenses and permits. "Just like a driver's license."
Based on your objections, then, I have to assume that you think the LEOSA should be repealed? After all, that's a federal law to overrides the laws of the individual states. It says so right at the start of the law.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
But ... we are where we are. 49 out of 50 states do require a permit or license in order to exercise the constitutional right to bear arms. So we have permits.
Not exactly. There are a few states that don't require a permit or license to carry and some states like Virginia require a permit to conceal but none to open carry.
Nickel Plated
New member
My only concern with legalizing suppressors using the hearing protection argument is that once legal and cheap they may become almost a requirement.
I'm all for legalizing suppressors and frankly repealing the whole NFA altogether. And hope he does.
But once this cheap (let's be honest, the only reason they cost so much is because they are a heavily regulated and niche product. Once completely deregulated, there's no reason a decent suppressor can't be made for about the same price as a typical steel mag) and easy hearing protection becomes available. Most ranges might start outright making them mandatory to use due to insurance and trying to not piss off the neighbors.
Suppressors are cool and I would certainly enjoy using it once in a while just for kicks. But everything has a place and time. Usually I go to the range specifically because I want to turn some money into noise and muzzle flash. Not for a quiet relaxing day.
If I want to shoot a quiet gun that doesn't disturb anyone. My airsoft guns are just fine for that, and I get to go full auto with those without going bankrupt.
Just hoping places don't go overboard with the whole suppressor thing. Still hope they get deregulated, if for no reason than just as a stepping stone to dismantling the whole NFA piece by piece.
I'm all for legalizing suppressors and frankly repealing the whole NFA altogether. And hope he does.
But once this cheap (let's be honest, the only reason they cost so much is because they are a heavily regulated and niche product. Once completely deregulated, there's no reason a decent suppressor can't be made for about the same price as a typical steel mag) and easy hearing protection becomes available. Most ranges might start outright making them mandatory to use due to insurance and trying to not piss off the neighbors.
Suppressors are cool and I would certainly enjoy using it once in a while just for kicks. But everything has a place and time. Usually I go to the range specifically because I want to turn some money into noise and muzzle flash. Not for a quiet relaxing day.
If I want to shoot a quiet gun that doesn't disturb anyone. My airsoft guns are just fine for that, and I get to go full auto with those without going bankrupt.
Just hoping places don't go overboard with the whole suppressor thing. Still hope they get deregulated, if for no reason than just as a stepping stone to dismantling the whole NFA piece by piece.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Sorry ... you are correct. I think there are currently four states that don't require a permit to carry concealed, but do offer permits on an optional basis for those who need one for reciprocity purposes.osbornk said:Not exactly. There are a few states that don't require a permit or license to carry and some states like Virginia require a permit to conceal but none to open carry.
States not requiring a concealed carry permit: ME, VT, WY, AZ, KS, MO, AR, MS, AK. Some of them require permits for non residents, however.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
Aguila makes some good points, points that I do agree with, but I respectfully disagree on some others.
While I do not seek the role of devil's advocate, there are some points I think should be considered in the discussion, and since no body else seems to be stepping up, here goes...
#1) there are several different, and somewhat mutually exclusive principles involved in the argument about nationwide concealed carry. These fundamental principles are one of our most contentious disputes as a society, and at one time even led to a civil war.
Individual rights
States rights
Federal Authority
which one has primacy when, and where? and WHY??
Our cause is good, and right, and just! Trouble is, the other side thinks exactly the same thing about their cause. These days, it seems too few people can respectfully disagree.
A valid and well accepted point, on our side of the issue. But the Constitution doesn't actually say that, in those words. And because of that, people make different interpretations, either in ignorance or by willful design.
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the FEDERAL government. That is quite clear. Less clear is how much those restrictions in the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments as a practical matter.
Some would say that the FED trumps all, always. Others disagree. Since the BIll of Rights deals with restrictions on the actions of the Federal Govt directly, consider the argument that it is implied "shall not be infringed" (by the Federal Government), and that States laws are not an infringement of our rights vis the FEDERAL government.
I believe that a number of people think that way, if they didn't we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today.
However, I also think that our right to arms is not the primary thing we should focus on in this discussion.
THIS is the point we should focus on. NOT because we have a natural right to arms, which should be recognized everywhere we have a lawful right to be, but because the STATES accepted the Constitutional requirement of honoring all other states when they joined the Union (became states), and all we are really asking is for them to KEEP THEIR WORD.
As to the equal protection (treatment) under the law factor, that's another reason for the debate, and the reason for the 86 FOPA. Because equal treatment under the law depends on WHAT law you are looking at, and who decides if "equal treatment.." is actually just.
Take a gun somewhere that a permit is required, without the proper paperwork, and you ARE committing a crime in that jurisdiction. A out of state traveler gets arrested, goes to jail, and eventually has their day in court, the same as a state resident who committed the same offense. Equal treatment under the law. But not, necessarily justice. The FOPA addresses this kind of imbalance by providing LIMITED immunity from the sate law, under a very narrow set of conditions.
The states, through their representative's participation in the democratic process, signed on to this, when the law passed Congress. They "agreed", willing or not. The FOPA protection essentially only covers people who are "passing through".
Nationwide CCW goes well beyond people who are just "passing through" and allowing people who don't meet their requirements to roam their streets armed, and protected from prosecution, is a real heartburn to the administrations of those areas with restrictive requirements.
Simply put, they don't trust their own people enough for unrestricted carry, why would they trust strangers (another state's govt) that their people are trustworthy???
The restrictive states are not going to change their standards just because WE think they should. That only leaves getting them to agree on their own, or forcing them to agree. Using force (of law, or decree, anything that could be spun as a right wing fiat) will be resisted, strongly.
And, it is of questionable moral authority.
Getting them to uphold their given word, on the other hand is an argument they have NO valid defense against. The will, of course come up with something valid sounding enough to take it to as many courts as they can shop...which will probably include the supreme one before tis over.
yes, actually. I was never in favor of that law. Not only does it overrule state laws, it is a special privilege for a special group. It is not equal treatment, it is preferential treatment, and I detest it.
I do not think police (active or retired) should have any special perks that are not EQUALLY available to other citizens.
If you are going to give nationwide CCW to retired cops, why not firefighters, doctors, Judges, lawyers, and indian chiefs???
Why not VETERANS????
All or none, anything else is blatantly unfair, and biased.
I would support a lifetime exemption from paying taxes for winner of the CMH, or their immediate family if posthumously awarded, but other than that, no special "rights" because of your job choice.
And, yes, I do make a distinction between that, and veterans benefits.
While I do not seek the role of devil's advocate, there are some points I think should be considered in the discussion, and since no body else seems to be stepping up, here goes...
#1) there are several different, and somewhat mutually exclusive principles involved in the argument about nationwide concealed carry. These fundamental principles are one of our most contentious disputes as a society, and at one time even led to a civil war.
Individual rights
States rights
Federal Authority
which one has primacy when, and where? and WHY??
Our cause is good, and right, and just! Trouble is, the other side thinks exactly the same thing about their cause. These days, it seems too few people can respectfully disagree.
My starting point is the Constitution. The Second Amendment says we have a right to keep and bear arms, and that this right "shall not be infringed." Any permitting or licensing scheme attached to a right is an infringement, and is therefore (IMHO) unlawful under the Constitution.
A valid and well accepted point, on our side of the issue. But the Constitution doesn't actually say that, in those words. And because of that, people make different interpretations, either in ignorance or by willful design.
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the FEDERAL government. That is quite clear. Less clear is how much those restrictions in the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments as a practical matter.
Some would say that the FED trumps all, always. Others disagree. Since the BIll of Rights deals with restrictions on the actions of the Federal Govt directly, consider the argument that it is implied "shall not be infringed" (by the Federal Government), and that States laws are not an infringement of our rights vis the FEDERAL government.
I believe that a number of people think that way, if they didn't we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today.
However, I also think that our right to arms is not the primary thing we should focus on in this discussion.
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
THIS is the point we should focus on. NOT because we have a natural right to arms, which should be recognized everywhere we have a lawful right to be, but because the STATES accepted the Constitutional requirement of honoring all other states when they joined the Union (became states), and all we are really asking is for them to KEEP THEIR WORD.
As to the equal protection (treatment) under the law factor, that's another reason for the debate, and the reason for the 86 FOPA. Because equal treatment under the law depends on WHAT law you are looking at, and who decides if "equal treatment.." is actually just.
Take a gun somewhere that a permit is required, without the proper paperwork, and you ARE committing a crime in that jurisdiction. A out of state traveler gets arrested, goes to jail, and eventually has their day in court, the same as a state resident who committed the same offense. Equal treatment under the law. But not, necessarily justice. The FOPA addresses this kind of imbalance by providing LIMITED immunity from the sate law, under a very narrow set of conditions.
The states, through their representative's participation in the democratic process, signed on to this, when the law passed Congress. They "agreed", willing or not. The FOPA protection essentially only covers people who are "passing through".
Nationwide CCW goes well beyond people who are just "passing through" and allowing people who don't meet their requirements to roam their streets armed, and protected from prosecution, is a real heartburn to the administrations of those areas with restrictive requirements.
Simply put, they don't trust their own people enough for unrestricted carry, why would they trust strangers (another state's govt) that their people are trustworthy???
The restrictive states are not going to change their standards just because WE think they should. That only leaves getting them to agree on their own, or forcing them to agree. Using force (of law, or decree, anything that could be spun as a right wing fiat) will be resisted, strongly.
And, it is of questionable moral authority.
Getting them to uphold their given word, on the other hand is an argument they have NO valid defense against. The will, of course come up with something valid sounding enough to take it to as many courts as they can shop...which will probably include the supreme one before tis over.
Based on your objections, then, I have to assume that you think the LEOSA should be repealed? After all, that's a federal law to overrides the laws of the individual states.
yes, actually. I was never in favor of that law. Not only does it overrule state laws, it is a special privilege for a special group. It is not equal treatment, it is preferential treatment, and I detest it.
I do not think police (active or retired) should have any special perks that are not EQUALLY available to other citizens.
If you are going to give nationwide CCW to retired cops, why not firefighters, doctors, Judges, lawyers, and indian chiefs???
Why not VETERANS????
All or none, anything else is blatantly unfair, and biased.
I would support a lifetime exemption from paying taxes for winner of the CMH, or their immediate family if posthumously awarded, but other than that, no special "rights" because of your job choice.
And, yes, I do make a distinction between that, and veterans benefits.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But the devil is in the details. For example:JN01 said:States not requiring a concealed carry permit: ME, VT, WY, AZ, KS, MO, AR, MS, AK. Some of them require permits for non residents, however.
In Maine, you canNOT carry in Acadia National Park or any of the state parks without a permit. So, since Acadia is the preeminent tourist destination in Maine, their recent switch to permitless carry is not even half a loaf. And Vermont doesn't offer licenses/permits even as an option, so Vermonters are out of luck with respect to reciprocity, unilateral recognition of home state permits by other states, or getting a non-resident permit in any state that requires a home state permit.
There may be similar gotchas for some of the other states named above.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The Constitution does say that -- very clearly and explicitely: "... shall not be infringed." The problem is that we have allowed the [formerly] clear meaning of "infringe" to be muddied beyond recognition. Anyone reading the definition of "infringe" and then reading the contemporaneous writings of the Founders would hsave no question as to exactly what the Second Amendment says -- and means.44 AMP said:A valid and well accepted point, on our side of the issue. But the Constitution doesn't actually say that, in those words. And because of that, people make different interpretations, either in ignorance or by willful design.
Most (if not all) of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been ruled to apply to the states via incorporation through the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment was pretty much the only outlyer, and that was resolved by the McDonald case. The Second Amendment applies to the states, per the SCOTUS. That was the fundamental issue of McDonald.44 AMP said:The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the FEDERAL government. That is quite clear. Less clear is how much those restrictions in the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments as a practical matter.
Agreed. The LEOSA is an example of "some animals are more equal than others." I was against it when it was passed, too. I remember very clearly all the police officers flooding the gun forums, asking for our support. I can quote one post from that time almsot verbatim: "This is just a first step. If we get this law, the states will see that nobody gets killed, and it will be easier for the rest of you to get national reciprocity because we'll be there to testify for you." So the cops got the LEOSA. Now ... where's all their promised support for the rest of us to get national carry reciprocity? [Crickets]44 AMP said:yes, actually. I was never in favor of that law. Not only does it overrule state laws, it is a special privilege for a special group. It is not equal treatment, it is preferential treatment, and I detest it.
I do not think police (active or retired) should have any special perks that are not EQUALLY available to other citizens.
If you are going to give nationwide CCW to retired cops, why not firefighters, doctors, Judges, lawyers, and indian chiefs???
Why not VETERANS????
All or none, anything else is blatantly unfair, and biased.
[Edit to add]
Those who say that, IMHO, are wrong, and at odds with the Constitution. The United States is a constitutional republic. The primary power lies with the individual states, and the citizens of the respective states. The federal goverment has (or is supposed to have) only those powers specifically delegated to it by the states. This is also spelled out clearly in the Bill of Rights.44 AMP said:Some would say that the FED trumps all, always.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Last edited:
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
I really cannot wrap my head around the "states rights" objection to reciprocity. Since when can a state ignore a right granted by the Constitution and incorporated into the 14th Amendment?
Even sillier is the argument that this opens the door for restrictive federal gun regulations, that horse ran out the barn door in 1934.
Even sillier is the argument that this opens the door for restrictive federal gun regulations, that horse ran out the barn door in 1934.
Every state has different laws and regulations regarding vehicle ownership. Sometimes those laws are different from city to city withing a single state such as inspections. BUT every vehicle is legal to cross state and city lines without committing a crime. More importantly there is no reference to vehicle ownership as a "Right" in the Bill of Rights as there is for firearm ownership.
So why is CCW not treated the same way?
So why is CCW not treated the same way?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Because GUNZ!Grizz12 said:So why is CCW not treated the same way?
I really cannot wrap my head around the "states rights" objection to reciprocity.
Probably because from our point of view there shouldn't be one.
But we aren't just dealing with our point of view, nor, sadly are we JUST dealing with the law. We must also deal with the human ego. Pride, personal and institutional. And, institutional memory as well. And inertia.
First, ask why those states with very restrictive gun control laws HAVE them in the first place. And then ask why they CONTINUE to have them, and then third, why they keep adding TO them.
The answer to the first can be found in history. Probably the most charitable thing that can be said is that the people were sold a bill of goods.
The answer to the second and third is essentially the same, and its is democracy. If the numbers were there to change the laws, the laws would be changed. They aren't. Not in those places. The truth is that by the numbers, most people simply don't CARE. Guns aren't their thing, gun rights don't matter, or matter less than other things. Since it doesn't affect their day to day lives, they don't care much, they think they don't have a dog in that fight.
(and this is leaving completely aside media fueled fear and hysteria of firearms that has come to be nearly the norm in recent decades)
Another significant segment of the people in restrictive states DO care about their rights, and their guns, BUT, are comfortable enough with the existing system(s). It's what they grew up in, its what is done, its right, and proper, so it must be just...
I actually was one of those people, once. The laws were what the laws were, always had been, we knew nothing else. Until I moved to another place with fewer laws about firearms, and discovered that not only was there another way, but people actually could live that way, and it was better!
So, getting the will of the people in restrictive states behind something that really only applies to a small number of people (as they would see it) will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.
THEN, there is the personal and institutional ego of bureaucracy. And the inertia of the same. They have a system. It has requirements. It's been working for a long time. They are FINE with it. NOBODY from "outside" is going to tell them its wrong. Sure, that's the extreme end of the attitude but I believe there will be people, possibly important people who would resist the idea for that reason alone. Some people can be very petty.
These are just some of the things that would be used to justify resisting any "order". Legal or not, anything forced on people who don't want it will cause resentment at the very least.
HOWEVER, there is a factor at work NOW that makes things different from the past. It could be a powerful factor shaping the opinions of the majority of people who otherwise don't care. The "just treat it like driver's licenses" approach has been brought up before, but never from the level it is coming from today.
But there is also a downside. Getting something today, will have unintended consequences, one of which might be the entrenchment of the idea of permits and "standard requirements" for everyone.
This ALSO goes against the idea that the states, and the people in them, have the authority to decide for themselves what their requirements are.
Every state recognizes every other state's drivers licenses, but you HAVE to have a license to legally drive!
are you ok with having to have a gun license, IF it was honored everywhere??
(private property excepted)?
I strongly suspect if one political faction pushes for simple reciprocity, another political faction will demand national permits and standards as a minimum to even consider the idea of changing the status quo.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Quote:
I really cannot wrap my head around the "states rights" objection to reciprocity.
Probably because from our point of view there shouldn't be one.
But we aren't just dealing with our point of view, nor, sadly are we JUST dealing with the law. We must also deal with the human ego. Pride, personal and institutional. And, institutional memory as well. And inertia.
First, ask why those states with very restrictive gun control laws HAVE them in the first place. And then ask why they CONTINUE to have them, and then third, why they keep adding TO them.
The answer to the first can be found in history. Probably the most charitable thing that can be said is that the people were sold a bill of goods.
For the last 150 years or so the Federal Government has pretty much ignored this right and let the states handle it. There is lots of precedence for this from the rights of Native Americans and former slaves to many other examples. It has only been in the last 15 years or so that people have been trying to hold the Fed accountable.
Several States have passed Preemptive Legislation stating that cities, municipalities, counties, etc. cannot pass laws/ordinances that are more restrictive than State law.
If a State can Preempt small cities and municipalities , why cannot the Federal Government Preempt the smaller individual States? Is there a difference?
If a State can Preempt small cities and municipalities , why cannot the Federal Government Preempt the smaller individual States? Is there a difference?
Armed Chicagoan said:I really cannot wrap my head around the "states rights" objection to reciprocity. Since when can a state ignore a right granted by the Constitution and incorporated into the 14th Amendment?
Even sillier is the argument that this opens the door for restrictive federal gun regulations, that horse ran out the barn door in 1934.
The states rights objection would be that the doctrine of full faith and credit allows an exception for a difference in public policy. How and whether one carries an arm would be a matter of that state’s public policy.
The point about additional federal regulation would be that for some people, any substantial regulation would result in a diminution of their rights. If you are a resident of Vermont and the federal government institutes a permit system for concealed carry, you now need to obtain a permit for what was previously a right.