Inconvenient Truth: National Reciprocity is Constitutional

This is why we need concealed carry national reciprocity

courtesy crimeresearch.org

Yeah, well that’s not exactly new. Noah Feldman makes the inconvenient point that no matter what you think about federal preemption and states’ rights, nothing about national reciprocity would be unconstitutional . . . Muddy Liberal Thinking on New Gun-Rights Law

It’s a terrible measure, to be sure, forcing states to allow people licensed to carry concealed weapons in one state to carry them anywhere else. But that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional, and liberals should be careful what they wish for.

To insist that the law is unconstitutional requires arguing that states have the ultimate right to legislate on guns. Yet if Congress were some day to prohibit concealed-carry everywhere, or to impose gun-control measures with teeth across the country, the same argument could be used to say that Congress lacks the authority to do so.

So liberals should be careful about borrowing the tools of constitutional conservatism to oppose the bill on states-rights grounds. Better to leave it to principled conservatives to challenge the bill as overstepping Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. …

In order to bring the law within the purview of Congress’s power, the bill says that it applies to “a concealed handgun” that has “been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” That’s every gun, pretty much. This formulation is intended to satisfy the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Full article — at bloomberg.com — here.

comments

  1. avatar Libertarian says:

    Wrong !!
    Shall issue ist still an infrigment and big goverment against you !!
    Constitunal Carry on any public place white out nfa act ist constiutional !!

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      The Perfect is the enemy of the Good-Enough.

      We NEED Shall-Issue in the last remaining 8-or-so Won’t-Issue jurisdictions. We ought to be thinking about our strategy if National-Reciprocity doesn’t clear the Senate.

      I think the Wrenn vs. DC decision is the most promising option to pursue. The DC Circuit ruled that Shall-Issue to residents and non-residents of “average” risk passes Constitutional muster; Won’t-Issue does NOT. DC didn’t want to risk appealing to SCOTUS.

      Look at our most PRESSING need for carry in the Won’t-Issue States. Shaneen Allen is the poster-child case. As a Philadelphia resident she had occasion to cross the bridge into NJ. If she had known her PA License-to-Carry was no-good in NJ and IF she could have applied-for and been Shall-Issued a NJ CWP then she would not have been vulnerable to persecution.

      Once we get Shall-Issue to non-residents in NJ (and in MD, etc.) PA (and VA) carriers will get those permits for neighboring States. Plus, some residents in NJ (MD, etc.) will start carrying in their home States. The obstacle to carry in these Won’t-Issue States will have been breached; and, their voters will get used to the idea of carry-by-civilians in their midst.

      Shall-Issue to non-residents overcomes ALL the emotional objections to National-Reciprocity. NJ, MD, NYC, etc. can set their standards however they see fit; i.e., they can have carry on terms they dictate for themselves. What objection could they make to Shall-Issue?

      Sure, they will set high standards to minimize the number of permits they issue. But, we WILL meet them. And, eventually, we will shame them and sue them to reduce the most onerous standards. It will take a long time; but it WILL happen. Just as the 40 Right-to-Carry States reduced their fees and training requirements. Just as a dozen became Constitutional-Carry.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If carry everywhere under any condition by anyone is the standard, then how can a federal law mandating states allow carry by some people in some conditions in some places be unconstitutional? If anything, it’s an under use of power, not an overuse.

  2. avatar Tommy D says:

    Imagine if First Amendment rights changed when crossing state lines, or 4th Amendmenr rights, etc…..

  3. avatar dph says:

    I’ll bite, what do the colors on the map represent?

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Wondering that myself

      1. avatar Art says:

        Looks like the USA Carry Reciprocity map for an in-state PA Concealed Carry Permit.

      2. avatar AndrewinVA says:

        The map shows the states that honor PA permits.

        Available via:
        https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Maine is constitutional carry, so the map is messed up to put Maine as red

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    “nothing about national reciprocity would be unconstitutional . . .”

    *

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (old skule LOL)

  5. avatar Maxi says:

    National reciprocity is NOT constitutional. Giving permission to do what already is not to be infringed makes no sense.
    It is however common practice amongst tlawmakers and judges to ignore this. So national reciprocity is the best thing we can get unless we make washington dc go away for good.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Laws requiring licenses or permits to carry are unconstitutional. Passing a federal law requiring that all states must honor the licenses or permits of another state is exactly what Article 4 Section 1 grants Congress the authority to do.

      But if/when it passes and gun control paradises like NYC don’t turn into the wild west (which was much safer than NYC in the late 19th century ironically), only the most zealous will believe gun control has any benefits.

  6. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    National reciprocity known as HR 38 that bill is a good bill by itself, however combining NICS fix with it is unconstitutional travesty of Justice. If the national reciprocity goes through as it is right now they’re literally be hundreds of thousands of gun owners that will become felons overnight. Just because someone sees a marriage counselor for depression or a counselor in general for PTSD or anything to do with life having problems you are automatically deemed mentally unfit to own a firearm and they will come out and collect your guns. This was a really good bill in the beginning before Finestein and Pelosi had a chance to go out it. Those two mental midgets shouldn’t even be allowed to participate in the United States government process. As gun owners we cannot let this bill go through. It is a nightmare if you have a chance go through and read the new National reciprocity Bill and all the BS included by Pelosi and Feinstein. It will turn your stomach!

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      I don’t make threats, but I would advise the ” they'” that are coming to collect my gun because I took anti depressants could be depressing for them.

    2. avatar ACP_arms says:

      “If the national reciprocity goes through as it is right now they’re literally be hundreds of thousands of gun owners that will become felons overnight.”

      That just not true, it doesn’t make new crimes or disqualifications.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Agreed! We PotG should stop making foolish arguments and START making the CORRECT arguments.

        There is NOTHING worth arguing about concerning the NICS system FFLs use to submit a B/C. There ARE REAL problems with the law that defines “prohibited-persons” (PP) and REAL problems with errors and omissions in the FBI’s databases. Why is there little-to-no complaining on our part about the REAL problems and ONLY complaints about the NICS inquiry system?

        Let’s get our heads on straight. The 2A only protects “the People”; it gives not one shred of liberty to any other person. There is NO liberty to arms for expatriates (Americans who have renounced their citizenship) and so, these are explicitly PP. There is NO liberty to arms for illegal-aliens, also explicitly PP. There is limited indulgence for aliens on non-resident visas. Read the DAMNED TEXT!

        As long as there is even a SINGLE Constitutional class of person who may be dis-armed then there is a logical argument for Congress to adopt a law to enforce its Constitutional dis-armament law. There is nothing we can do to argue our way out of NICS; nor, for that matter, to argue our way out of NCIC (which cops use to identify fugitives and felons).

        So, instead, let’s start with the FBI’s databases’ “False-Positives” which John Lott Jr. has documented. That is where our REAL problem arrises under NICS. And, it’s not NICS – instead, it’s the FBI’s database. How would you like to be pulled-over in a Constitutional-Carry State with no CWP with a driver’s license showing a name like “Leroy Brown”? As we know from the song, there is a “Bad, bad, Leroy Brown, badest man in the whole damned town. . . . ” Your complaints about NICS will take on a whole new perspective.

        Let’s ask Congress why it exempts certain felonies – e.g., price fixing – from 2A-rights disablement. Just why is the domestic diva Martha Stewart stripped of her 2A rights when any other billionaire with a different non-violent felony is free to buy all the guns he likes?

        Let’s ask Congress why it won’t fund the DoJ’s procedures for restoring a PP’s 2A rights.

        Let’s ask Congress to undertake a reform of its mental-illness criteria for stripping a citizen’s 2A rights.

        If we could bring ourselves to focus on the RIGHT issues instead of the foolish issues then we would be more likely to make some progress. And, we wouldn’t make fools of ourselves.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        But he clearly read and understood the bill as can be seen by his statement: “[i]t is a nightmare if you have a chance go through and read the new National reciprocity Bill and all the BS included by Pelosi and Feinstein. It will turn your stomach!” Also, it’s good to see that Feinstein is out of the Senate and Pelosi voted for National Reciprocity. /Sarc

    3. avatar Defens says:

      Constitutionality rathole aside, Fix NICS creates no new laws or even no new categories of prohibited persons. If a current gunowner is a prohibited person and is able to buy or possess firearms now, simply because that disqualifying issue hasn’t been reported – they are still a disqualified person. Updating the NICS database by mandating that information be submitted doesn’t disqualify new classes of citizens – it just makes it possible to identify those disqualified who have previously skated by. Do I agree with some (but not all) of the disqualifying instances? Heck no – but let’s stop with the hyperbole.

      Regarding the state’s rights issue – I guess the liberals screaming about that will then STFU about re-instituting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban then, right? If the Feds can’t override a state’s ability to control who can concealed carry in the state, then they sure as heck shouldn’t be able to ban any guns at the Federal level, either. Once again, 2A aside for a moment.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “let’s stop with the hyperbole.” That’s good advice. I will have nothing to do with GOA because they lied to me (and everyone else) about this bill. I don’t care to sift through their statements looking for the truth.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The “constitution” = American road kill sausage recipe.

  8. avatar Gman says:

    NO IT’S NOT
    In order to bring the law within the purview of Congress’s power, the bill says that it applies to “a concealed handgun” that has “been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” That’s every gun, pretty much. This formulation is intended to satisfy the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
    And this is exactly why it is not Constitutional. It may be acceptable in the twisted contortion of logic that is the current state of affairs for the ICC clause but that doesn’t make it Constitutional. The ICC has been used (abused) by the Fed and the SCOTUS for far too long as a massive power grab from the states. Just listen to yourself and step back for a second. We (the Fed) can force the states to accept all other states CC law BECAUSE the gun must have, at one point in it’s life, crossed a state line or foreign boundary. Can any HONEST person rationalize that?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Ha! We were on the same wavelength. I just typed slower. 🙂

      Using the interstate commerce clause for a law like this is absolutely ridiculous.

      Unless they’re making the point that the patchwork of state-level restrictions is hindering the ability of people to conduct business across the nation…that seems more logical, but still it’s an unnecessary stretch.

      They don’t need to invent a pseudo-constitutional argument based on an irrelevant clause; I mean, smoothing over issues like this is what the federal government was made for.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      You’re correct that this is a ridiculous interpretation of the commerce clause, which was supposed to prevent states from erecting barriers to interstate trade (regulate meant “make regular”, e.g. normalize, in 1781).
      The bill should reference Article 4 Section 1, which mandates that states honor the documents issued by other states, and grants Congress the authority to ensure that they do.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        The meaning of “regulate” in the commerce clause is exactly the same as “regulate” with respect to constipation: the aim is to make things flow smoothly, nothing more.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If only the courts agreed with you.

    3. avatar Defens says:

      If a person, carrying a concealed weapon, crosses a state line under the new bill, how can that NOT be interstate commerce?

      1. avatar billy says:

        Cuz I aint selling it or exchanging it for anything.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          But are you likely to buy or sell something while in another state?

    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      Your remarks accord with my sentiments; however, I have read an analysis that leaves me satisfied that the bill is OK with mentioning the Commerce Clause justification.

      The first and most compelling defense of using CC is this. The number of laws outstanding that are justified by an absurd assertion of CC is incomprehensible. NO MATTER WHAT, SCOTUS would be loath to undermine the Constitutionality of ALL these other laws. Therefore, one more absurd reference to Commerce Clause is very nearly an iron-clad security against a Constitutionality challenge.

      A second point is that there is nothing in our system that expects Congress to explain how it has the “power” to legislate. Instead, it is SCOTUS’s undertaking to explain why Congress LACKS any power. So, strictly speaking, Congress doesn’t have to explain itself. And, even if it makes a claim, SCOTUS could still defy the claim. To illustrate, suppose Congress cited its power to “arm” the militia. I think that would be the most powerful Constitutional basis. Yet, SCOTUS could counter that there is no historical basis for Congress to connect its power to arm the militia to concealed-carry. Unlike CC, we would have a hard time pointing to all the other laws put in jeopardy by overturning National-Reciprocity on this ground.

      A third is that any other plausible Constitutional reference such as full-faith-and-credit or equal protection is vulnerable by some creative line-of-reasoning. There may be more precedent for some other reference (compared to the arm the militia clause) yet there could be arguments that distinguish guns from eating at Woolworth’s lunch counter.

      I’ve concluded that we are probably OK with no Constitutional reference as justification. We are probably as well off – perhaps better off – using CC vs. the alternatives. We probably can’t get some other strategy into the bills pending in Congress at this juncture.

      Our biggest concern – now – is that a National-Reciprocity law might not clear the Senate. In that case, what’s our back-up plan? (I think it should be Shall-Issue under Wrenn vs. DC).

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “A second point is that there is nothing in our system that expects Congress to explain how it has the “power” to legislate.” – This. As long as Congress has authority to pass this law, which it does*, it doesn’t matter which part of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to pass this law.

        Clearly, the thinking behind the law is the Commerce Clause (CC). I loathe the judicial expansion of the CC that started with Wickard v. Filburn. But that doesn’t mean I won’t support a constitutional law because the authors are looking to the wrong part of the Constitution for the authority to pass it.

        *14A, Sec. 5; Art. I, Sec. 8, Clauses (3, 11, 13, 14, & 15) + 18, & 16.

    5. avatar RMS1911 says:

      It’s Constitutional under the supremacy clause the second amendment is in the Constitution. States have zero rights to legislate anything concerning the right to keep and bear arms.

  9. avatar Ing says:

    That commerce clause, though… It’s beyond ridiculous how the federal government stretches that poor thing.

    If that’s an acceptable Constitutional hook for this law — if the simple fact that I’m carrying a personal possession that was at some point “shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce” means the federal government can legislate my behavior and override my state’s laws — well, there ain’t nothing the feds can’t control that way. I wipe my ass with TP that was part of interstate commerce…they going to tell me how many squares I can use?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The founders did not insert the commerce clause casually. There was much debate, much anxiety and fear of the central government using the clause to control almost every action of the citizens of the individual states. However, the greater evil was economic warfare between the states.

      “Commerce” is what the SC declares it is; even refusal to participate in commerce. We are living what the founders feared.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Ing, they’re not “stretching” the commerce clause, they’re inverting it (see explanation of “regulate” above).

      A good example of why this law is constitutional is emissions control laws for cars: no state is allowed to tell someone from anther state that they may not drive within that state because the emissions control laws are different.

  10. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    So, we are back to perverting the Commerce Clause for making national reciprocity constitutional. LOL.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      Maybe this will wend it’s way through the courts and all the travesties justified by the commerce clause will be undone. It’s been the reasoning behind a number of dodgy rulings. Wickard v. Filburn comes to mind. I’d almost be willing to lose this shot at reciprocity to see that happen.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        If that happened, that would be a major win for gun rights. It would mean that the NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment would all be unconstitutional.

  11. avatar OneIfByLand says:

    No alleged perversion of the commerce clause is needed. Section 1 of Article IV of the constitution already enshrines national reciprocity.

  12. avatar OldSkool says:

    Anyone else feel a little embarrassed that a very large portion of the founding colonies are so anti gun?
    I mean, they all seem VERY proud of their colonial history, but 2nd amendment… nope, not having any of that crap!

    Thomas Jefferson and George Washington slept here!

    The constitution? Just toilet paper…..

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      A very valid point. Alas, it doesn’t get us anywhere. The voters in these States are who they are; they will not be embarrassed.

      What we have to focus on is the tide of population flows. Where do the voters in America live? In cities. In the high-population states on the East and West coasts. Population is moving from rural precincts to urban centers. Do we understand what this means?

      The House of Representatives is increasingly populated by voters who live in cities. The Electoral College is increasingly populated by electors from States with urban populations. As time marches on, these situations will worsen.

      What are the hunting and marksmanship opportunities in urban precincts? Are we depending on hunters and marksmen to overwhelm the voting booths? We had better start thinking of the self-defense argument for keeping and bearing arms.

      Keeping a gun in the home is probably not enough motivation. People feel safe in their homes; they don’t realize that they spend about 1/2 their time in their homes which can be invaded with a single kick to the door. We need to sell urban dwellers on both CARRYING and keeping arms. We need to convince their neighbors that it is safe for them to live with neighbors who keep and bear arms.

      These high-population States are failing economically. Their voters move from blue to red States. The red States are just marginally red. How easily can a State move from 51/49% gun-rights/gun-control to 49/51%? ALL of us in Right-to-Carry States must recognize the impact of Californians moving to Austin TX or from Trenton NJ to Philadelphia.

      Our two strategies to overcome these phenomena are:
      1. – National-Reciprocity in Won’t-Issue States; and,
      2. – Turning red-States into gun-control-is-a-3rd-rail States.

      Gun owners in Texas, etc., must make sure that NO candidate can win either of its Senate seats while being soft-on-gun-rights. If you have any aspirations to political life in Texas you must have a history of being a gun-rights supporter. This will become evident to – e.g., Texas Representatives – who have aspirations of running for the Senate. And, in turn, to Texas State legislators with aspirations of running for a Texas Representative to Congress. Voters in Austin must be taught that they can have any progressive they like representing them in the TX legislature or Congress PROVIDED that he is “right” on gun-rights.

      Converting one voter in Austin to the gun-rights viewpoint is worth a lot. Converting one NYCity voter to the gun-rights viewpoint doesn’t get us anywhere.

      It takes only 41 to 51 Senators to stop most/any bill; and, therefore, any law. It takes only 51 Senators to stop any nomination to the Federal bench. If we have 40 Right-to-Carry States we have a pool of 80 Senators. How hard should it be to maintain control over 41 to 51 out of 80 Senators?

      If we could succeed in the Senate alone we could STOP every gun-control bill and every gun-control judge. Success in these two objectives makes gun-control from the Federal level a dead-letter.

      1. avatar bob says:

        Yup

        Like GunDoc says, things need to be changed as to allow it to be a non issue. Protecting yourself anywhere in the nation should be as open and personal choice as clothes you where to protect yourself from the weather.

        We shouldn’t have to ask permission to protect our lives, nor should we be limited to how we do it.

        We need to break the idea that concealed carry is to hid a gun from the cops and enforce its to hide it from every joe blow knowing what you have and where it is.

        I mean, you don’t see people making laws that say cell phones MUST be displayed at all times as to allow others around you to know you have one and can use it.
        Or cash, or credit cards, or lipstick, or knives, etc…

        I hide my gun for the same reason I hide my money, I don’t want some joker eyeing it up and trying to take it.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      “Anyone else feel a little embarrassed that a very large portion of the founding colonies are so anti gun?
      I mean, they all seem VERY proud of their colonial history, but 2nd amendment… nope, not having any of that crap!”

      Yeah. One of those has a motto many others should change from “Live Free or Die” to “Live Timidly and Die”.

  13. avatar GoD says:

    This is the fundamental problem with ignorant people talking about the Constitution!

    All States accepted the 2nd amendment and Constitution when they become States which is a declaration and warning to Government these rights cannot be changed or voted on. All gun laws are illegal all 22k of them!

    The Ninth Amendment:
    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people in 1789 and beyond.
    Meaning i could carry a cannon or the most advanced military weapon in the world and be within my right to do so and it was encouraged!

    This amendment means that nothing written in the Constitution can be used to cancel amendments to it.

    The Tenth Amendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.<<<<<THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This amendment means that anything the Constitution does not mention can be considered by states as part of their powers if they wish to do so.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Words have meanings. The only way to use the 2nd to justify “carrying” a cannon is to deny the original meanings of the words and impose a shallow modern version. “Bear arms”, in reference to individuals, meant the ordinary arms of the common soldier. Only in reference to organized groups does it mean artillery or any other crew-served weapons.

      Though it’s important to note here that “organized group” does not mean one specifically established to serve as a militia, but any with a set discipline and chain of command. That’s why merchant ships, businesses, and landowners are indeed entitled to crew-served weapons. So if you want a cannon, you can’t look the the Second Amendment to justify such possession, but if you have your own ship with a crew or even a family estate with multiple adults living they’re, you’re golden (although the crew-served arms you may thus qualify for aren’t meant to be hauled around at will; they’re meant to protect the people and premises of the business or estate).

      It’s worth mentioning here that the entire militia concept from seventeenth century Britain just doesn’t fit easily into modern ways of thinking. That’s one reason do many people get it wrong. It behooves us to work at getting it right.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So if you want a cannon, you can’t look the the Second Amendment to justify such possession, ”

        The second amendment protects the right of the people (the militia) to acquire and possess whatsoever weapons are needed to ensure the standing armies of the United States central government cannot be assured of a monopoly of firepower. The second amendment is not simply about personal weapons, but about preserving the ability of the citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government. An imbalance of military power ensures the central government can casually become an occupying force in the nation it serves.

  14. avatar GunDoc says:

    No. It’s not constitutional.

    An enumerated right is just that: a right.

    A permit GRANTS A PRIVILEGE. How ANYONE with more than two brain cells fails to realize that is beyond me.

    This bill needs to die.

    SHARE Act is more important. HR 3576 (SAGA Act) is more important.

    If it is truly reciprocity, then people in states with Constitutional carry (Vermont, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Maine to name a few) are screwed, since if they want to make use of it, they have to waive their rights and acquire a permit. True reciprocity would simply be a re-statement of the 2nd, which says “keep and BEAR.” Bear means carry in whatever means you like.

    How is this so f*&%ing difficult to grasp? Not to mention that it let’s the camel into the tent- do you really think the inevitable Leftist government won’t use this to their advantage when they regain power?

    Again, this bill, along with the “NICS Fix” needs to crawl away and die.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      How can this bill be unconstitutional, but the SAGA and SHARE acts be constitutional? Each act would simply force states to abide by this or that part of the 2A. By the way, parts of SHARE are actually unconstitutional. Specifically, the SHARE act deals with the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is an illegal tax on a constitutionally protected act.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      GunDoc, you miss your own point: this law established no permits, grants no privileges; it only requires the several states to recognize permits issued by other states. And historically, carrying concealed was for the most part not considered covered under the right (with the exception of accidental or incidental concealment, such as the wind whipping your coat to cover your sidearm, or it not being visible from all angles, etc.), so the permits are reasonably arguably constitutional. What _isn’t_ constitutional is requiring a concealed permit in order to carry openly; no law restricting open carry is legitimate, since that is the right that is protected.

      As for constitutional carry states, there’s an easy fix for them: just designate a driver’s license or state ID card as the state’s “permit”, and put that in fine prnt on the card.

  15. avatar Fookin Prawn says:

    People forget about the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the Constitution, also. No bill should have to be drafted to abide by existing provisions within the U.S. Constitution.

  16. avatar billy says:

    To keep and bear arms.

    Keep (to own or have for ones self, not to store in a closet)

    Bear (to support, carry, or hold. does not say to hold only while covered from eyes or while mounted in a safe)

    Pretty sure its clear and dry.

    While we’re at it, ARMS doesnt mean pistols, or rifles, or even guns only, it covers weapons, period.

    So, in closing.

    The people, have a RIGHT, to OWN and CARRY WEAPONS.

    All my Lawyer and Engineering friends will like this next one.

    SHALL is a definitive term and is used as such, meaning mandatory.

    INFRINGED (to limit or restrict)

    Pretty sure Mag RESTRICTIONS or length RESTRICTIONS or bumpfire stock RESTRICTIONS are all RESTRICTIONS……

    SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED.

    I love you, you love me, we’re gonna learn by the 1, 2, 3’s…….

    1. avatar GunDoc says:

      There you go. Being all logical.

      Cue the apologists, appeasers, FUDDS, and other “friends” of the 2A to come along and tell you that the 2A doesn’t really mean what it says- that the states can sell your rights back to you in the form of a permit, because, well, because they do, so it must be constitutional.

      This bill would pretty much cement the UN-Constitutional current system that exists in 38+ states- that of being required to petition the authorities to sell you a hall pass for something you have simply by existing.

      NO.

      This bill needs a stake driven through its heart. The SAGA Act needs to be passed (as a bare minimum start), and EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL JURISDICTION that currently infringes on the 2A needs to be sued into financial oblivion. As in, would need to take out a loan to buy a pot to piss in.

      Just because something is “legal” does not make it “lawful.” And arguing that the issue is too complex is disingenuous- if a law contravenes, impairs, or otherwise goes against the 2A, it is nullified.

      However, one of the biggest (and at the heart, simplest) solutions is simply to strike the term-of-art “firearms.” “Arms” is found in the 2A. But “firearms” are not.

      Legalese- the words may look similar, but it’s a completely different language.

      1. avatar bob says:

        Exactly!

        While national reciprocity sounds good, once you really think deeper about it, doesn’t sound right.

        It only covers CONCEALED carry for one.

        What we need is nation wide recognition of the right to carry, period. Open or concealed.
        Whoever started the idea that there should be a lawful difference between the two should of never been given a soap box to stand on.

        Why would it be unlawful to conceal a firearm in the first place.
        It affects NOBODY, NONE. So why is it illegal?

        If its illegal, why can it be legal as long as I pay a couple bucks and carry a plastic card proving I’m not a felon?

        You’re right, its just a permission slip from someone who we shouldn’t have to ask permission from!

        Its the switchblade knife crap, just because it scares you, doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.
        Most of these problems also fall under the fact that the laws are written by people who do not own or use firearms.
        Well that makes sense, lets have people who don’t know how to do something and don’t have any interest in it, write the manual on how to do it. derrrr

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      No, “keep” covers wherever you decide to have it. Remember that the Revolution started because of an attempt to seize arms which, under your interpretation, had no protection because they were not being carried with someone but were in storage.

      Indeed that’s why there are two different words: to “bear arms” meant to go about with those arms ready to be put to use; “keep” covered every other aspect of ownership, whether under the seat of your conveyance, in a locker somewhere on your property, stacked in the corner of an office while you’re in class at school, or hanging off a chair while you visit friends.

      “Keep”, BTW, often implied protection, so having your arms locked in a safe is most definitely covered.

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      BTW, billy, “arms” doesn’t mean just weapons — armor is included as well, along with all accessories to bearing or wearing weapons or armor. Thus not only is a sword covered, but its scabbard and belt and sharpening stone; in more modern terms, holsters and belts and ammunition and, yes, body armor. Arguably items for storing said arms are covered as well, so gun racks and safes and ammo boxes would come under “arms” — though that argument isn’t necessary, since “infringed” indicates not just the thing itself, but all things necessary and useful pertaining to that thing. Thus under “shall not be infringed” not just your guns are protected, but empty brass and loading gear and dedicated cleaning/repair bench with any and all items which go with those, from a can of RemOil to a stack of little pieces of old bedsheet for cleaning patches.

      This is one reason the Second is the most powerful of the enumerated rights: not only is no one allowed to restrict or impair your ownership or use of guns themselves, they’re not allowed to interfere or impose a burden on anything whatsoever that pertains to said ownership or use. So even a packet of condoms for covering the tip of a barrel in inclement weather comes under the ‘umbrella’ of the Second.

  17. avatar joe sixpack says:

    I am totally perplexed. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear.

    Liberals are against gun control until they are a victim of a violent crime.

    Constitutionalists are always pro-bill of rights.

    Be careful of where your children are educated!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email