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

“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?

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!

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?

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…

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]

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.

Police at severe risk ??

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

Or not.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

Lies. Damn Lies. And Progressive Bloviations.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Farago,

-paste quoted article above in its entirety here-

Goddamn right.

Be safe.

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

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!

“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.

“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?

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?

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

i’d take him shooting (~blush~).

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. “.

@ 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.

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/

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?

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.”

First, while the Supreme Court has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms extends to individuals unconnected with service in a militia and is incorporated against the states (neither notion is uncontroversial, but let’s assume that both are solid constitutional principles), it did not say that states have no authority at all to regulate firearm possession (including by having strict standards for issuing concealed carry permits); Justice Scalia clearly writes in the former ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, like most other rights, not unlimited, and may be regulated by the states to an extent. In fact, he specifically singles out bans on concealed weapons as a regulation the Second Amendment does not invalidate – and since that ruling, no state has such a ban in place, only restrictions that differ from state to state. Hence, even under conservative jurisprudence, concealed carry is not a right but a privilege that a state may or may not grant. The Tenth Amendment explicitly grants all the power not reserved to the Federal Government to the states, and it’d be very hard to argue that Congress may require states to recognise other states’ licenses (to anything, not just concealed guns) under the Commerce Clause or any other section of the Constitution dealing with federal authority.

Now to the article’s author’s perception of liberal views on same-sex marriage and criminal justice reform, that he claims show inconsistency or hypocrisy in their interpretation of the Constitution:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, but there is, in the Fourteenth Amendment, a phrase known as the Equal Protection Clause, which says that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. There are clear, practical legal benefits to marriage, mostly regarding property and inheritance matters, and thus a state may not deny those benefits to same-sex couples without also revoking them from heterosexual marriages. This was the argument of the Court in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia (which required states to recognise interracial marriages), and the same argument was used in Obergefell v. Hodges. Under the author’s reasoning, a state may deny marriage licenses to interracial couples, because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry.

As to criminal justice reform, the author created a nice strawman that claims “progressives…want the feds to come in and sort out local police departments accused of lethal racism.” In practice, virtually all reform efforts have been directed to state and local governments, and the only initiatives suggested to the Federal Government have to do with prohibiting federal agencies from selling weapons of war (e.g. grenade launchers, armoured vehicles, etc.) to local law enforcement agencies and making changes to federal drug statutes that make drug possession a felony. Nobody (nobody relevant, at the very least) says that Congress, the Justice Department or any other federal agency should “sort out” local police departments. That’s a mischaracterisation and is blatantly false.