National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is Unconstitutional! Or Not . . .

Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for Everytwon for Gun Safety (courtesy nydailynews.com)

“The NRA proposal, which will now go before the Senate, would allow people to carry hidden guns in every state with no permit, no training, and no background checks whatsoever,” Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Counsel Adam Skaggs (above) declares. “It would undermine local public safety decisions and put police officers at severe risk. As a matter of public policy, it’s a terrible idea.” How’s that for mischaracterization? Par for the course at slate.com. Mr. Skaggs’ main argument: national concealed carry reciprocity is unconstitutional . . .

As more than a dozen state attorneys general have explained, the NRA’s federally mandated concealed carry plan conflicts with basic “constitutional principles of federalism.”

The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. That’s why states make their own rules when it comes to public safety, policing, and concealed weapons. The NRA plan would turn that tradition on its head.

And so on — ignoring the fact that the same progressives who’ve got their knickers in a twist about national concealed carry reciprocity fully support the Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriage.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with gay marriage. But I can’t find the bit of the Constitution that protects the “right” to marry. Not to put to fine a point on it, only a progressive could find the right to marry in the 14th Amendment but not the unfettered right to keep and bear arms in the Second.

Not to mention ignoring the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision “incorporating” the Second Amendment (ruling that the protection trumps local and state law). Anyway, here comes the 10th Amendment!

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves powers to the states that are not delegated to the federal government, and the states’ “police power”—the basic responsibility to promote the welfare, safety, and health of the public—is sacrosanct.

Throughout American history, states have had the primary responsibility for public safety, and regulating who carries guns in public, and under which conditions, is among the most important ways they do so. The race-to-the-bottom concealed carry plan would eviscerate states’ police power.

God forbid we should reduce the power of the police! In fact, the same progressives who can’t stomach national concealed carry reciprocity are the same folks who want the feds to come in and sort out local police departments accused of lethal racism. Anyway . . .

The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a 10th Amendment issue any more than the right to free speech is a 10th Amendment issue. Which is such an obvious fact that you have to wonder who’s stupid/craven enough to A) write that it is, B) publish an article saying that it is, and C) believe an article saying that it is.

Willful ignorance is a terrible thing, especially when it leaves good people defenceless against bad people. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

comments

  1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “states have had the primary responsibility for public safety, and regulating who carries guns in public, and under which conditions, is among the most important ways they do so.”
    That’s why Vermont, which never regulated who can carry a concealed gun, has perennially been listed among the safest states for violent crime?

    1. avatar ROBERT says:

      Hmmmm……
      Didn’t a bunch of states secede somewhere around 1860? THEY felt state’s rights were paramount, and that the NORTH was forcing the SOUTH to do things they didn’t believe in. ……

      THEY LOST.

      So, then what’s your point again????

      [snark, … snark….]

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “THEY felt state’s rights were paramount”

        Don’t fall for the revisionist lie. If the Southern states were all that concerned about states’ rights, they never would have forced the Fugitive Slave Act through Congress in 1850.

        The Fugitive Slave Act required that all escaped slaves were to be captured and returned to their masters — even if the slaves had reached the North where they were free under state law — and that officials and citizens of the non-slave states were required to cooperate in implementing the law, even though state law required just the opposite.

        States’ rights my @$$.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          There is one very important thing that EVERYONE is missing. This is NOT about states’ rights, nor is it about the federal government, this is about an individual’s right AND the Constitution. Every state signed on the dotted line when they became a state that they would accept and uphold the Constitution. Both the federal government and the states have violated the Constitution more often than not! States do NOT have the right or authority to create law that infringes on the rights of one single citizen, and gun laws do that – ALL OF THEM! Preventing law abiding citizens from carrying, whether openly or concealed, just makes the criminal’s job easier. Law enforcement was NOT created to REPLACE the citizen’s right to self-defense or protection of property, they were designed to deal with criminals when and where citizens couldn’t. If the justice system did it’s job and actually executed violent criminals, most violent crime would cease; and if government (including the states) would rid this country of illegals and those who are anti-American and prevent them from entering/reentering, crime overall would decrease significantly. This NRA NCCR Proposal is the best idea that the NRA has had in a LONG time, and all it does is say the same thing that second amendment does, just in different words!

    2. avatar Madcapp says:

      This is not unexplored territory, and I can’t understand why there is any resistance at all…All you have to do is look at any state that has “shall issue” concealed carry permit laws, and show me where this has increased criminality, or caused any other problem. I live in a shall-issue state with no restrictions on open carry at all…and there are zero problems, nothing is ever in the news about it, and there is no concern I’ve ever heard about it either.

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        ” I live in a shall-issue state with no restrictions on open carry at all…and there are zero problems, nothing is ever in the news about it, and there is no concern I’ve ever heard about it either.”

        Same here, except in MT you don’t need a permit to conceal unless you are in an incorporated township. 96% of the state is constitutional carry.

        Now if we could vote that idiot Bullock out we could make it 100%.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Carrying concealed or open, carrying permitted or constitutionally, or even carrying at all, isn’t the issue and never was. It’s always been a cultural matter, not a firearms matter.

      Vermont proves it, but nobody dares talk about it. To broach the Vermont experience is to suggest that being a largely rural, older, and whiter population results in less violent crime. That sounds racist.

      Worse than sounding racist, though, is the that the suggestion is really just an obvious observation. Since it simply is what is, then it isn’t racist at all. It’s just reality that urban areas dominated by young blacks are hotbeds of violence. That’s life in the big city, with or without guns.

      Nobody wants to talk about that. Really, if you remove the black on black crime from the U.S. stats, we have comparable or even lower rates those of Europe. The major problem is the thug life culture, not firearms per se.

      1. avatar Will says:

        Facts that don’t fit the narative must be thrown out. Evidence or observations that don’t support the narrative: the same.

        VT isn’t brought up because it doesn’t provide the evidence that supports disarmament… errm… the “gun safety” they speak of in public.

        1. avatar Jack Crow says:

          Vermont is a hate fact!!

          Or, something… I don’t have the hang of “modern” thinking yet…

      2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        simplistic, but a lot of truth there. The real question is how to subvert that anti-social behavior. I get that people born in certain areas and social strata have a very rough go of it, but I don’t buy the “product of the environment = outcome” argument, we all make choices and if you’ve let your negative environment be what drives your choices that still on you. I also think that if don’t recognize the effect the environment and opportunities have on people you’re deluded. The success stories that come from such places are real, but they’re also the exception not the norm.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          drunkEODguy,

          Regarding someone growing up in a crime-infested Hellish urban core:
          Removing yourself from that environment is extremely difficult. If you had grown up in such conditions, the following would almost certainly apply:
          (1) You don’t have a car.
          (2) You have no savings.
          (3) You are poorly educated.
          (4) You don’t have any practical skills.
          (5) You don’t have productive mentors.
          (6) You don’t have any work experience.
          (7) You have limited (if any) local opportunities to work.
          (8) You have no one who is willing to invest money into your betterment.

          How would you remove yourself from that situation when you basically have no resources? Let’s be honest: someone has to invest a small amount of money (perhaps on the order of $1,000) to start you on the right track. In other words you would need a sponsor. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any such program.

          I know about a family that emigrated from Western Europe to the United States in the early 1950s. The pre-condition for their trip: an entity (a church in Wisconsin in this case) had to sponsor them. Sponsoring that family meant that the church paid for their travel across the Atlantic Ocean, provided a place for them to live, provided food for the family initially, guaranteed work for the father who was obligated to work for them for one year, and promised to provide mentoring for the family for that year. At the end of that year, they were free to move-on if they desired. Oh, and that family had to reimburse the United States government at the end of that year for the train fare when their family traveled from Ellis Island to Wisconsin. Now, keep in mind that the father was a skilled farmer with a solid, basic education. And that move was still very difficult — although it was doable because countless thousands of families who legally immigrated to the United States repeated the same success.

          That is the sort of program that we need for people who wish to escape our crime infested urban Hell holes.

        2. avatar Mike B in WI says:

          Uncommon-sense, you are correct with your information. And NONE of that has anything to do with “gunz!” I agree with you that we need to address these issues and not blame and restrict an inanimate object. (Well put)

  2. avatar Chadwick says:

    The 10th doesn’t supersede the 1st or 2nd. If someone honestly thinks that then they really don’t understand what a right is. In fact they just plain don’t understand the bill of rights.

    Reciprocity just means the fed is forcing states to respect (some)of the 2nd ammendment. Stfu Bloomberg swine!

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    Wait, state police power is sacrosanct now? What was the deal with all those Justice Department investigations and consent decrees of various local police departments? What was the deal with incorporating 4th Amendment protections against the states? Protection against self-incrimination? Guaranteed representation in criminal trials?

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    If they weren’t willfully ignorant they’d have NOTHING. Like black folks content to live on the plantation and suicidal anti-gun Jews. Pissing and moaning about a tax plan that has to better than the crap we have NOW…

  5. avatar Woody W Woodward says:

    The right to keep and bear arms may not be a 10th amendment question, but it is definitely a 2nd and 14th amendment matter. The 2nd amendment recognizes the right and the 14th makes it a state’s obligation to make no law, or to enforce no law, that violates that right.. That’s in plain understandable American English. Now, what’s the damn problem?
    [W3]

    1. avatar ROBERT says:

      ENGLISH? I thought we “talked “Amurikunn.”

  6. avatar Ing says:

    Progressives just can’t manage not to lie, can they. But their lies and willful ignorance make perfect sense when you consider that their one goal is to use government power to force everyone to behave the way they want them to.

  7. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Police at severe risk ??

    Um, yeah. Legal carriers are definitely the people that would concern regular patrol cops.

    Or not.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Only in leftist Eastern Bloc Communist Police-States..?? Like NJ., MA., MD., CT., NY., etc…It’s easier to make a private US citizen into a criminal that actually dive right into dangerous waters of PD known gangs , or hot beds of criminal organizations…Easy-breezy donut patrol, and town/city ticket-arrest quotas…Just ask that black nurse going though NJ…..

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      Legal concealed carry in other states might stop some of the highway abuses of out-of-staters by local LEOs. In many places in this country, an out of state of country license plate is revenue in the form of an expensive ticket or even a bribe.

    3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      The only cops that might be at severe risk are those thug cops that insist on assaulting law abiding citizens or shooting their dogs. When a cop insists on forcing a citizen to comply to his every demand, when that citizen has done nothing to warrant that harassment, that cop needs to be put in his place. Cops have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens, as long as they are law abiding cops!

  8. avatar Defens says:

    If it’s the states that set their own requirements for gun ownership, then why do libs, from Shannon to DiFi, want to impose fed-level bans, etc.

    1. avatar blahpony says:

      Good question.

  9. avatar Joe from NC says:

    If the leftists didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

  10. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    So, this means I’d have to get a drivers license for every state I wanted to drive in.
    Yup. Mr. Skagg is that kind of special stoopid.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      No, there’s a big difference in the two.
      You have no constitutional right to drive. That states agree to honor other states’ licenses doesn’t pose a perceived threat to the citizens of any states, because states impose restrictions on getting a license. As is their right. SO the vast majority of licensed drivers have been at least exposed to the rules of the road.
      Firearm carry, OTOH, is a constitutionally protected right (though obviously not an absolute right). The constitution, as amended, says state and local governments can’t pass and/or enforce laws that infringe on that right (certain areas excepted; again, no right is absolute).
      So, in the case of driving licenses, the various states have the right to impose regulatory hurdles to gaining a license to drive.
      In the case of guns, however, the opposite is true: the various states have no right to impose regulatory hurdles to the right to keep and bear arms.
      So the fact that your license is good in other states is entirely up to the states. State A could, if it wanted to, actually say they won’t honor licenses from state B, because state B’s licensing requirements aren’t the same as state A’s.
      But in the case of guns, the constitution says the various states can’t do that.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        An interesting parallel will be how States handle self-driving cars. States like CA, NV and AZ have agreed to work to allow self driving cars but states like Oregon have decided to take a wait and see approach and only certify these cars when enough miles are logged to determine safety. Does that mean you cannot take an autonomous car from CA into OR or from NV into UT?

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          They’ll probably just treat it like any other car.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “(though obviously not an absolute right)”

        2A is only 27 words long. Perhaps you can study it, then get back to me about “OBVIOUSLY not an absolute right”, and where the flick you get that stupid idea.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          There is no such thing as an absolute right.
          Can you yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater? Even with the first amendment?

        2. avatar Mike B in WI says:

          Big Bill, YES, you CAN yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, especially if there IS a fire in the theater. Gun control laws attempt to prohibit you from exercising a right. As a comparison to laws prohibiting one from carrying a gun, the same control utilized to prevent someone from yelling “FIRE!” in a theater would require everyone to tape their mouth shut prior to entering the theater so that they COULDN’T yell.
          Laws relating to firearms that punish a person for an act they commit with a firearm that is harmful or unlawful, such as murder (NOT homicide), are appropriate and necessary for an ordered society, but laws that attempt to prohibit a person from that act are not.

      3. avatar Snatchums says:

        I was able to get my drivers license at 14, no not a learners permit, an actual license. I did not have to have driver’s education, the written test was a 20 question multiple choice and the driving exam lasted all of 3 minutes and my speed at no point exceeded 25mph. I would consider those testing qualifications to amount to basically nothing, yet every state recognized my license.

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      No no, it’s a question of recognizing that different areas have different cultures and thus the constitution applies differently. For example, consider the various areas where it’s A-OK to torture a confession out of you and the places where you have to apply for a permit to go to a non-approved church.

      /sarc

      Yeah, special kind of stupid.

  11. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    “It would undermine local public sa fety decisions and put police officers at severe risk…”

    If law abiding citizens carrying ar ms puts police officers at risk, those officers should seriously question their mission.

  12. avatar Don says:

    The bill just outlines who may possess firearms and where they may possess them. In other words, it’s gun control. If the gun control enthusiasts claim that the federal government can’t do that, why aren’t they also demanding that all federal gun control be repealed?

    1. avatar Capt'n Obvious says:

      Because it isn’t their flavor of control.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I’d be more than happy to get on board with the legal principle that all federal exercise of the Commerce Clause involving guns is a violation of the 10A, as long as that principle was applied to all federal gun laws.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Don, that is just freaking beautiful! Thanx!

  13. avatar Dug says:

    So help me out. How does resprosity work for states that have no licensing process like Vermont. So if I’m from Vermont and go to CA, does my drivers liscense serve as my CHL? Not that I object, just don’t know how the law addresses the issue so that I can separate truth from BS.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      My understanding is that you would need to get a CWP from another state or Vermont would have to create a permit for those who want the national reciprocity. Unless something has drastically changed there is no provision in the bill for reciprosity without a permit.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        The House bill has it, Cornyn’s doesn’t. Under the House bill, you do not need a permit if you come from a con carry state (D/L does the trick), and also recognizes nonresident permits (which would finally allow NYC residents to carry in the City, Hawaii citizens to carry on a Utah permit, etc.)

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I believe section (a)(2) covers permitless carry states in S.446. Though I have to admit, I’m not sure as to the effect of the “otherwise than as described in paragraph (1)” language. I think it might mean (a)(2) only covers residents of states that don’t have a permit system, but do have Constitutional Carry.

          Cornyn’s bill is garbage compared to the H.R. 38.

    2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      As Mark N. states above; don’t even need to get a NH non-resident license.

      “. . . who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm OR IS ENTITLED TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE PERSON RESIDES” (Emphasis added.)

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text

  14. avatar MikeJH121 says:

    They have just so much stupid on their side. The left should be denied their 1st amendment rights, since they want to deny our 2nd, under the guise of mental disorder. They definitely have mental issues. So let us play their game. No freedom of the press if you have mental issues. No freedom of speech, etc….

    If the 2nd doesn’t cover all states then gay marriage doesn’t even get close to all states argument. Use their own ammo against them.

  15. avatar pieslapper says:

    Lies. Damn Lies. And Progressive Bloviations.

  16. avatar ironicatbest says:

    While I am not pro gay marriage, I must accept it because it is a law.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      While I am pro gay marriage, the way they went about it is asinine. I think it is abroad interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, and I also think that the government should have no part in marriage in general like they did until the 1950s when the Democrats instituted marriage licenses to prevent interracial marriage.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        This is always a fun game to play with progs.

        They’ll argue that the parties flipped and now it’s the Republicans who are racist.

        At that point ask two questions: If the Democratic Party is no longer racist why did it use part of it’s Convention to celebrate Margaret Sanger, and avowed racist and eugenicist who created Planned Parenthood believing blacks would effectively abort themselves out of existence?

        Further, considering that from the 1910’s to 40’s the Progressive movement believed in eugenics and in “a humane gas to liquidate the undesirables in society” (Blacks, gays, Jews, the disabled, elderly etc) then why is it that the Democratic Candidate in the 2016 election cycle proudly proclaimed to be an “early 20th Century Progressive”?

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          The whole “Southern Strategy” was and is a myth, in its entirety. So, too, is the claim that the parties “switched,” at all.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bull. Louisiana has had civil marriage (with licenses) since 1721, when New Orleans was finally established, applying French civil law and community property statutes, maintained by the Spanish, and codified by the so-called Napoleonic Code. According to Wiki, Massachusetts has had marriage licenses since 1639, with the practice expanding thereafter, although common law marriages continued to exist. Most states have had licenses since the mid-18th century, which included California when it was established as a state in 1850. Texas too, I believe, had licensing since established as a state. There are a number of public interests in documenting marriages through licensing, including assigning responsibility and parentage to children, prevention if disease, disposing of property at death or divorce, and so on. And that really is the point: marriage in America is a civil service that may or may not be performed/sanctified by a religious officiant. I do not believe there is any state where a marriage ceremony can be performed without a license and without an officiant licensed by the State. Because of pervasive governmental control in all aspects of marriage, and with the given that the government is precluded from discriminating against different classes of citizens, gays have the right to the same civil marriage rights as anyone else. It is actually simple, and logical.

        1. avatar Rat Salad says:

          That’s all fine and dandy , but God turned some woman into salt for locking back at her lesbian girlfriend in some town called Salina, or something like that . So that proves God dont like gays. And before that it was dark all night, until a buzzard flew up and pecked holes in the blanket until his head got burned ,and let in light, we think their stars but the buzzard got no feather on his head to prove otherwise

        2. avatar DrewR says:

          I apologize, I wasn’t clear. I was referring to federal government intervention, which does trace back only to the 50s.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “I do not believe there is any state where a marriage ceremony can be performed without a license and without an officiant licensed by the State.” – I know that isn’t the case in at least Texas. And that isn’t just because Texas is one of the last states with common law marriage.

          What marriage right did heterosexuals have that homosexuals didn’t? Heterosexuals and homosexuals had the same marriage rights.

          Also, the state has virtually no interest homosexual marriage. The primary purpose of marriage is the determination of legal responsibility for children. Every other interest has always been better served by other legal mechanisms like wills.

          I honestly don’t care about the issue itself, but I can’t see a legitimate argument for “gay marriage” as a constitutional right.

          And back to the common law marriage thing, it is going to be hilarious when all the court cases start showing up about gays who “got married” before they could legally marry. I have a feeling there is going to be more than a few people who didn’t really mean it, but under Texas law, are totally married.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      “Law” had noting to do with the current nonsense.

      1. avatar Iillinois_Minion says:

        Only when it suits their whims.

  17. avatar IN Dave says:

    I hope he is right. If federal law is not above state law than the 1968 gun control law and the Hughes amendment is toilet paper. Thanks.

  18. avatar DrVino says:

    Doesn’t federalism apply to things NOT covered by constitution?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      No, but the state’s rights/10A argument does. Federalism is a system in which powers are divided between a central government and regional governments. State’s rights/10A is only half of the Federalism equation.

  19. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Those that attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment, whatsoever, should be deemed as convicted of a treasonous usurpation of the US Constitution and be summarily executed by law enforcement or civilians alike, after formal acknowledgement and indemnification by the President of the United States of America. The president should offer a bounty on anyone actively trying to undermine US sovereignty or the US Constitution. Let’s get to killin’ these bastards by the millions. And yes, I’m serious.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    AMERICA IS ALREADY 100% PERMITLESS CARRY

    for all criminals who choose to ignore the law.

    Everyone else, is subject to those laws until deciding to also ignore them.

  21. avatar Mort says:

    Mr. Farago,

    -paste quoted article above in its entirety here-

    Goddamn right.

    Be safe.

  22. avatar Tori S says:

    Wait, I’m so confused. I thought progressives wanted to evicerate states’ police power?

  23. avatar MGD says:

    Liberals will say that the states have the right to make their own laws and pass their own restrictions on the 2nd. Ask them if that applies to the other amendments as well. So, a state can say that your 5th amendment rights are restricted? So, a state can say that you can’t refuse a search of your person absent probable cause, or they can say that probable cause is null and void? A state can tell you that you can’t say anything negative about its leaders?

    Let the fun begin!

  24. avatar GS650G says:

    “The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. ”
    Uh, no. In fact it’s pretty clear the right to bear arms is not subject to any of that horseshit.
    Funny how the left discovers new powers of the 10th amendment when it suits them. They trampled on it enough over the years.
    I guess when it comes to abortion the feds tell states with different culture, traditions and needs what the rules are. Guns, not really.

  25. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    “The NRA proposal, which will now go before the Senate, would allow people to carry hidden guns in every state with no permit, no training, and no background checks whatsoever,” Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Counsel Adam Skaggs (above) declares. “It would undermine local public safety decisions and put police officers at severe risk. As a matter of public policy, it’s a terrible idea.”

    Don’t you just love how whenever a piece of pro gun legislation comes up for a vote all the antis become freaking illiterate?

  26. avatar MarkPA says:

    OK, so “States’ Rights” is one excuse. Another is “race-to-the-bottom”; e.g., no training, testing or qualification. So, we have to chant harder:

    – What do we WANT? CON-CARRY!
    – WHEN do we want it? We’ll wait till politicians fly!!!
    (repeat with increasing enthusiasm)

    Is there a better idea? A really compelling approach? One that could be a next-step toward further steps? One which – IF it FAILED – STRENGTHENS the argument for Congressionally-mandated National Reciprocity?

    I propose we sue the Won’t-Issue States – based on the Wrenn precedent – for Shall-Issue to Non-Residents. (Work-out the arguments for yourself; they would be really compelling to SCOTUS.) Tell the Won’t-Issue States that they MUST have SHALL-Issue – yet, on terms they dictate themselves. Set your own fees, training, testing, qualification.

    (Wrenn vs. DC was resolved in favor of Shall-Issue for residents and non-residents alike by a 3-judge panel in the DC Circuit. DC appealed for an en banc hearing; were unanimously denied. DC decided not to appeal to SCOTUS. The decision stated that the “average” citizen has a right to carry; i.e., it ruled-out “special need”.)

    This GUTS the “States’ Rights” and “Race-to-the-bottom” arguments. What other arguments are there – i.e., that would favorably impress SCOTUS?

    A counter-argument will be that the Won’t-Issue States will impose onerous requirements. Good; the more onerous the better! Fees too high? Like a poll tax. (Unconstitutional!). Training too long? Test too hard? Like a literacy test. (Unconstitutional). Qualification too hard? Harder than that imposed on the States’ own cops? Go ahead: Make my day! These States will have to impose these requirements on their judges, prosecutors, political contributors, celebrities and BRINKS! There is a limit to which the States will try this stunt. They will try; and, they will be beaten-back in the courts. It will take a long time; but it’s better than Won’t-Issue.

    Years pile-up with Virginians carrying in DC, Pencil-tuckians carrying in NJ. Few, if any incidents. Gradually, the hoplophobia of carrying will dilute. (Bear in mind that it won’t require millions of Pencil-tuckians carrying in NJ; one will be enough, just a few. Ask Shaneen Allen if she would pay the fees and meet the qualifications for a NJ carry permit. Ask all of us on the NJ border if we will meet those requirements. There will be quite a few, and that’s enough to send the message that carry-is-safe.)

    Too good to be true? Perhaps; in fact, I HOPE so!! I hope that the Won’t-Issue States will fight like dogs to impede the progress of lawsuits. All the publicity will be in favor of OUR position: there IS a Right-to-Carry – even if you have to pay a fee, be trained, tested and qualified. But these States REFUSE Right-to-Carry on their OWN TERMS!

    Likely, SCOTUS will either:

    – Take the case and rule in our favor; or,
    – NOT take the case because they don’t want to rule in our favor.

    Then, we resume the fight in Congress. There is a Right which the States will not honor, the courts will not enforce. What recourse is there, but to appeal to Congress to enforce the Constitution?

  27. avatar Dr. Edward Mario Covelli Jr. says:

    The 10th Amendment is a silly argument because the Second Amendment delegates that power to the people and the role of the Federal Government to protect the RIghts of the People.

  28. avatar DDay says:

    The Constitution—and common sense—recognizes that different states have different cultures, traditions, and needs when it comes to guns. That’s why states make their own rules when it comes to public safety, policing, and concealed weapons. The NRA plan would turn that tradition on its head.

    Funny the lib’s don’t want the states with different cultures, traditions and desire for health standards to restrict abortion. There is a right to kill an unborn child to libs but not to harmlessly carry a firearm.

    In one case, someone is guaranteed to die and the libs celebrate that, in the other, a person is protecting themselves from harm and that is a crisis.

    liberals hate the constitution.

  29. avatar Helms Deep says:

    The courts have held that the police have NO duty to protect you , yet then claim police are there to protect you …. so we may regulate guns away if we choose. — Get Bent !

  30. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Anyone who knows anything about constitutional law who makes the argument that this law is unconstitutional is a liar, unless they say that the courts’ interpretation of the Commerce Clause for the past 75 years is wrong. If that’s their argument, then most of the federal laws, including the NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment would also have to be considered unconstitutional.

    Furthermore, they would also have to be ignorant of the 14A which grants Congress the authority to enforce the 2A.

  31. avatar Jan Gerstner says:

    As we know, child pornography is created, stored and transmitted by use of high-speed, large-capacity computers.
    We need a common sense law that requires any device capable of being connected to the Internet, to have a chi in it with a unique, identifying code. Any time such high-speed, large-capacity devices are connected to the Internet, this code would be transmitted to a government registration agency. Every person who owns a device that can connect to the Internet would have to registered to that computer. Anyone who uses a computer to which they are not registered would be guilty of a felony with mandatory prison time.
    Now, relax, NO ONE is going to come to your home and take away your high-speed, large-capacity computers capable of creating, storing and transmitting child pornography. You may continue to do so in the secrecy of your home without fear of the government finding out, except through means currently in use. It it only when you connect to the Internet that it must be with a device to which you are registered.
    Yes, it would increase the cost of these devices, slightly, but it would be worth it if we are able to prevent and capture just one child pornographer. Yes, a government agency would have to be set up to monitor the Internet, but we know that some branch of Homeland Security is already doing that. Adding the monitoring of registration would be a small additional cost that would be worth it we can prevent just one child from being a victim of pornography.
    The cost to manufacturers to add such a chip would be minimal. If it saves just one child.

    1. avatar Jim Macklin says:

      I’d post a picture of a large capacity feeding device, but that might be pornographic. 🙂

  32. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    i’d take him shooting (~blush~).

  33. avatar Carlee Maynard says:

    It doesn’t matter where you live. We all live under the same Constitution. “The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. “.

    1. avatar Jim Macklin says:

      Since 2010 McDonald every state. But lots of bad laws are on the books, as Scalia warned in HELLER. The SCOTUS needs to look at ALL the bad laws and strike them down.
      Prior to McDonald states, like NY or CA could claim states’ rights and pass whatever they wanted since the Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated.
      This is why HR 38 is necessary to make all the states compliant with McDonald via the 14th Amendment.

  34. avatar SparkyInWI says:

    @ uncommon_sense….. My folks came in that way actually in the early 50s. My grandfather’s on both sides worked as did the adult kids (my mom and dad, etc.). My dad was also offered the chance for immediate citizenship by joining the US Army and spending 2 years fighting in Korea. And my mom’s job was actually in some ammo plant packaging mortar rounds for final shipment to Korea for use there. One grandpa worked in a foundry the other as a tailor since that is what he did back in the old country.

    So these programs work. And yes maybe instead of spending tons of $$$$ on social programs that do not seem to work, something similar to this type of program might make better sense. And yes maybe have churches and other non-profits that do a lot of good work run it. And while nothing can save everyone, this might save a lot of folks.

    But this takes a thought process so far out of the box for our current political leaders today, too far probably. This concept might blow up their heads actually. No our leaders prefer partisan bickering and throwing good money to bad in more government run fiascos. That is one thing they do well and bipartisan, waste taxpayer money.

  35. avatar Tim says:

    Just like there is no authority vested in FedGov via the Constitution for marriage (Gay or otherwise) likewise there is none when it come to our arms. “Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.”

    Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, their opinions are not law and only apply to those parties before them. Remember they found Obamacare “Constitutional” when clearly is is not, since like marriage and arms, health care is not among the delegated powers. Contrary to popular belief SCOTUS is not the final word on anything Constitutional, the States having created FedGov still have the power to declare acts of their creature unconstitutional and have no duty to obey. (OK granted our States have long ago surrendered their Sovereignty to the creature they created)

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/17/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-is-a-natural-right/

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/08/from-duty-to-be-armed-to-permission-to-carry/

  36. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    Congress should pass laws to prevent states from making unconstitutional laws or enforcing laws on the books that are unconstitutional now. Maybe they should make it a Constitutional Amendment?
    What do you think?

  37. avatar CC-Tex says:

    Doesn’t Article 4, section 1 of the US constitution require CCL reciprocity?

    Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    According to the Constitution Daily webpage presented by the National Constitution Center this means:

    “Each state is required to recognize the laws and records (such as licenses) of other states and to enforce rights in its own courts that would be enforced in other state courts.”

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