The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[geronl]

This is worse than a "patch-work" quilt.

You really expect police officers to be able to determine what state a person they pulled over is from and to enforce another states law... because that is ridiculous.

[Just_Victor]

This is worse than a "patch-work" quilt.

You really expect police officers to be able to determine what state a person they pulled over is from and to enforce another states law... because that is ridiculous.

In fact that is partially the point I suspect.  Since it's impossible to determine the state of origin, and then enforce their laws, the effort is probably an attempt to invalidate anything less than Constitutional carry.  Or at least force some uniformity.  Not sure about that though, cause it depends upon whether they choose the Constitution to be the standard, or DCs laws.

[geronl]

In fact that is partially the point I suspect.  Since it's impossible to determine the state of origin, and then enforce their laws, the effort is probably an attempt to invalidate anything less than Constitutional carry.

States either have carry or not (it should be uniform either way) and it is incumbent on a traveler to know which their destination is.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is worse than a "patch-work" quilt.

You really expect police officers to be able to determine what state a person they pulled over is from and to enforce another states law... because that is ridiculous.

That's precisely the point I was making above:  To be workable, coast-to-coast reciprocity would require Federally mandated rules for CCW, and you can bet your life the Feds will pick the most strict State laws to accommodate.  Constitutional Carry would be strangled in its crib, and Illinois gun laws would be universal.

Fortunately there are enough Democrats and RINOs to kill such an idea before it even hits committee.

[Jazzhead]

In a word, no.  Marriage and abortion aren't concepts covered (or even mentioned) in the U.S. Constitution, and as such are reserved by that document for state consideration if the states desire to do so.  The bearing of arms is most definitely covered, and the Constitution is unequivocal in saying that that right shall not be infringed, either by the federal government (the 2nd Amendment) or by state or local governments (the 14th Amendment).  The states do not have the authority to restrict the bearing of arms where the federal government doesn't.  That principle is inarguable.

The extension of the 2nd amendment to the states is inarguable.   But a law restricting the ability to conceal a firearm in public is not an unconstitutional infringement.   The states should be able to decide such matters for themselves.   Forced reciprocity is unenforceable as a practical matter (see Just Victor's post).   It's up to each traveler to know the laws of the state he is visiting, if he wants travel with concealed weaponry.   

[Frank Cannon]

This is worse than a "patch-work" quilt.

You really expect police officers to be able to determine what state a person they pulled over is from and to enforce another states law... because that is ridiculous.

We have that now. I can drive a dangerous uninspected piece of shit from Ohio into a state with stringent saftey inspections without a care in the world. What's the difference here?

[Cyber Liberty]

We have that now. I can drive a dangerous uninspected piece of shit from Ohio into a state with stringent saftey inspections without a care in the world. What's the difference here?

Well, there's the "keeping and bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege" argument....

[Doug Loss]

The extension of the 2nd amendment to the states is inarguable.   But a law restricting the ability to conceal a firearm in public is not an unconstitutional infringement.   The states should be able to decide such matters for themselves.   Forced reciprocity is unenforceable as a practical matter (see Just Victor's post).   It's up to each traveler to know the laws of the state he is visiting, if he wants travel with concealed weaponry.

In that case, then open carry should be declared legal in all states as a matter of reciprocity also.  If concealment is your only concern here.

[geronl]

The laws of the state you are in is what you should be obeying, not the laws of the state you aren't in

[Jazzhead]

In that case, then open carry should be declared legal in all states as a matter of reciprocity also.  If concealment is your only concern here.

No, the rights of state and local communities are my concern.   I sure as heck don't want Philadelphia's laws overridden by whatever peculiar gun-totin' customs apply in Texas, just as much as, I'm sure, you'd wouldn't want Philly's laws to override yours if you're a Texan. 

I cast no aspersions on CC laws.  I understand their merits.   The 2nd amendment's primary purpose to allow self-defense in the home.   But it should be up to each state or local community whether folks should be able to waltz around on public streets carrying lethal weaponry. 

 

The laws of the state you are in is what you should be obeying, not the laws of the state you aren't in 

Makes perfect sense to me. 

[skeeter]

The 2nd amendment's primary purpose to allow self-defense in the home.   But it should be up to each state or local community whether folks should be able to waltz around on public streets carrying lethal weaponry. 

Oh I gotta hear what you have to back this assertion up.

[thackney]

The 2nd amendment's primary purpose to allow self-defense in the home.

I'm fairly certain, after overthrowing an overbearing king that tried to take away their weapons, that wasn't the primary concern.  Probably the reason they started with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You may also notice they closed with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  No limits discussed about "in the home".

[skeeter]

I'm fairly certain, after overthrowing an overbearing king that tried to take away their weapons, that wasn't the primary concern.  Probably the reason they started with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You may also notice they closed with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  No limits discussed about "in the home".

The co author of the 2nd amendment, George Mason, was unambiguous concerning the reason for it.

It was to prevent a free people from being enslaved by tyrants.

[Doug Loss]

The 2nd amendment's primary purpose to allow self-defense in the home.   But it should be up to each state or local community whether folks should be able to waltz around on public streets carrying lethal weaponry. 

Nope, that's flatly untrue.  Everything written by the people who drafted the 2nd Amendment says exactly the opposite.

[Cyber Liberty]

I cast no aspersions on CC laws.  I understand their merits.   The 2nd amendment's primary purpose to allow self-defense in the home.   But it should be up to each state or local community whether folks should be able to waltz around on public streets carrying lethal weaponry. 

 
Makes perfect sense to me.

Makes perfect sense to you.  Gun totin' people waltzing around, blasting away.   

And no, the Second Amendment was not so you could carry a weapon around the house and nothing else.  That's just ridiculous.

[Polly Ticks]

"The 1st amendment's primary purpose to allow free speech in the home.   But it should be up to each state or local community whether folks should be able to waltz around on public streets speaking their minds."

That doesn't make much sense, does it.

[Fishrrman]

Victor wrote above:
"The 2nd Amendment is meant to apply to all states, equally.  Since the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly declared in the Constitution, the 10th amendment doesn't apply here.  So, no, the states don't get to write their own laws in violation of the Constitution."

I agree with that observation.

In that case, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act might be considered not "anti-state" per se, but rather an attempt to restore "Constitutionality" (invented word?) to those states that have over-reached the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, insofar as gun rights are concerned.

By the way, the democrats are 100% certain to filibuster this in the Senate.
The only way I can see it passing is if "the nuclear option" is invoked.
Perhaps I'll be proven wrong (by democrats up for election in red states)...

[Fishrrman]

Polly Ticks asks:
"How would National Reciprocity where my KY CCDW is valid in every state mesh with Constitutional Carry where I don't need a CCDW in my state?  Does that imply I can travel to any other state also without a permit?"

DEFINITELY a problem there.

Vermonters have had the same predicament for years, as (for years) Vermont was the only state in which no state-issued "permit" was necessary to carry weapons.

Sounds great so long as you remain in-state, but Vermonters couldn't carry OUT-of-state -- they had nothing to show [out-of-state] that they were legal to carry in-state.

Now that other states have adopted "Constitutional carry", this could be a problem for gun owners in those states, as well.

Imagine if there were one or more states which didn't require drivers to carry driver's licenses. When stopped out-of-state, how would the officer be able to ascertain that the person driving was qualified to operate a motor vehicle?

Regardless that some may answer "the Second Amendment itself provides the 'license' to carry", that's just not practical from the standpoint of law enforcement.

SOME form of state-issued "license" is going to be necessary, even for states with Constitutional carry.

Otherwise, this isn't going to work.

Aside:
Never mattered much for Vermonters, anyway. New York State doesn't recognize ANY other state's CC license -today-, and I don't believe Massachusetts does, either. The only other direction a Vermonter could drive would be New Hampshire, not sure about there. Perhaps Andy-58 would know.

[Jazzhead]

Nope, that's flatly untrue.  Everything written by the people who drafted the 2nd Amendment says exactly the opposite.

From the headnote to Scalia's majority holding in D.C. v. Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,  and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

That's what I was trying to paraphrase from memory in my post above.   That's the law as it exists today,  centuries after the context of the Revolutionary War.   There are no kings to overthrow;  a firearm is a right endemic to the defense of person and property.   Heller itself invalidated a D.C. law that precluded a D.C. homeowner from protecting his abode by effectively banning the possession of handguns and requiring that legally registered firearms be kept unloaded or disabled while in the home. 

A cat waltzing around downtown Philly carrying a longgun is neither protecting his abode nor seeking to oust tyrants.   If the local jurisdiction wants to regulate such activity, then it should have the right to do so.  It certainly has the Constitutional right;  and I that basis I oppose this mandatory reciprocity bill.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Using language like "gun-totin'" and "waltzing around with a long gun" isn't doing much to convince anybody here of the logic of your arguments.  It makes you look like a gun-grabber pushing "sensible gun laws."

[Just_Victor]

From the headnote to Scalia's majority holding in D.C. v. Heller:

That's what I was trying to paraphrase from memory in my post above.   That's the law as it exists today,  centuries after the context of the Revolutionary War.   There are no kings to overthrow;  a firearm is a right endemic to the defense of person and property.   Heller itself invalidated a D.C. law that precluded a D.C. homeowner from protecting his abode by effectively banning the possession of handguns and requiring that legally registered firearms be kept unloaded or disabled while in the home. 

A cat waltzing around downtown Philly carrying a longgun is neither protecting his abode nor seeking to oust tyrants.   If the local jurisdiction wants to regulate such activity, then it should have the right to do so.  It certainly has the Constitutional right;  and I that basis I oppose this mandatory reciprocity bill.     

Point 1:  "...and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," is an example, and in no way confers a limitation.

Point 2:  "A cat waltzing around downtown Philly carrying a longgun is neither protecting his abode nor seeking to oust tyrants."  You don't know what the purpose might be.  The 2nd Amendment protects our right to self defense; of our selves, our homes, communities, cities, states, and ultimately our nation.
Here's a thought experiment to drive home the point of the need for uniformity in application of the 2nd Amendment:  If a hostile nation decided to invade the US, where do you think they would choose as an insertion point, Texas or Massachusetts?

[Jazzhead]

Using language like "gun-totin'" and "waltzing around with a long gun" isn't doing much to convince anybody here of the logic of your arguments.  It makes you look like a gun-grabber pushing "sensible gun laws."

I agree with Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.   I'm not a "gun grabber".  But I do not take the view that the Second Amendment precludes reasonable regulation of the right.   Neither did Scalia.   Let the states and local communities regulate the carrying of guns in the public square.  Time, place and manner restrictions on Constitutional rights have traditionally been held to be lawful.     

[thackney]

I agree with Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.   I'm not a "gun grabber".  But I do not take the view that the Second Amendment precludes reasonable regulation of the right.   Neither did Scalia.   Let the states and local communities regulate the carrying of guns in the public square.  Time, place and manner restrictions on Constitutional rights have traditionally been held to be lawful.

I'm curious of your opinion (and everyone else's) why the second amendment included the language "shall not be infringed", particularly in comparison to the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights.  What did the founders mean in adding this language to only this one right?  How did they intend that to be different from the others?

[Cripplecreek]

Using language like "gun-totin'" and "waltzing around with a long gun" isn't doing much to convince anybody here of the logic of your arguments.  It makes you look like a gun-grabber pushing "sensible gun laws."

You're from rural Michigan. You know how free and easy we were with guns in the little Michigan towns. It was not unusual to walk down main street on our way to hunt carrying a shotgun over our shoulder. It wasn't uncommon to make stops along the way like the grocery store, hardware, or even the bank. This wasn't in the 30s or 40s, this was well into the 80s and 90s.

Open carry has never been illegal in Michigan that I'm aware of and its never been a problem.

[Bigun]

I'm curious of your opinion (and everyone else's) why the second amendment included the language "shall not be infringed", particularly in comparison to the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights.  What did the founders mean in adding this language to only this one right?  How did they intend that to be different from the others?

I think you already know my position on that but I will state it for you anyway!  I think it is clear as a bell that they meant EXACTLY what they said in precise English!