(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
And by this very act, automatically curtailing the rights of other citizens from doing the same. Certainly not equal treatment under the law is it?
(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
In New York State EVERY Handgun must be registered under the ccp - how can this possibly be enforced on a VA resident?
Not only is this bill unwarranted and deviously restrictive, it is also unworkable.
My goal has been to have people consider all sides of the issue and then make an informed decision based on what they feel is the right thing to do. That is also why they make both vanilla and chocolate ice cream.
so basically you would need a large amount of states to lower there high standards or have a large amount of citizens from free states have liberty restricting conditions thrown on them just because they want the right to defend themselves while they travel....i have a feeling we wont be seeing any lowering of standards on any states part and we will see a stalemate one way or another.
seeknulfind wrote:b) the federal government has the authority to dictate to individual states what laws from other states they must honor.
Between Full Faith and Credit and Amendment XIV, I'm pretty sure they do.
Not sure what exactly you are referencing here but I know of no wording in the Constitution giving the feds a free hand to dictate state law. There remains the little manner of state's rights.
The one grey area here is Interstate travel. As we all know, when anything crosses state lines, the feds like to assume jurisdiction. Okay, what about that?
Not only is there a great deal of precedent for this, it also makes sense in a lot of ways. Why else should we have a federal constitution? And if this authority remains with the federal government, what authority do they have?
According to the 2nd amendment the federal government "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Thus any action that infringes on our 2nd amendment rights should be rendered unconstitutional.
The only conclusion I can some to, as unlearned in the law as I am, is since concealed carry permit laws prevent law-biding citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, then they, too, should be rendered unconstitutional, as indeed I hold them to be.
seeknulfind wrote:
According to the 2nd amendment the federal government "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Thus any action that infringes on our 2nd amendment rights should be rendered unconstitutional.
The only conclusion I can some to, as unlearned in the law as I am, is since concealed carry permit laws prevent law-biding citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, then they, too, should be rendered unconstitutional, as indeed I hold them to be.
Andy
Exactly. The beauty of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is this: You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. Those documents are not only the supreme law of the land, but should also be the model for how other laws are written.
"Send lawyers, guns, and money; the $#!t has hit the fan!" - Warren Zevon
The bill doesn't give the feds any regulatory power at all. Rather, it requires states that offer a permit to recognize permits from other states. Gun owners would have to follow any and every state law and local ordinance wherever they travel.
The bill hurts no one. It helps folks traveling through the handful of states with older "may issue" carry laws (including Maryland.) It does nothing for the people of Illinois and DC since they are the only remaining state and jurisdiction with no carry rights at all.
seeknulfind wrote:Not sure what exactly you are referencing here but I know of no wording in the Constitution giving the feds a free hand to dictate state law. There remains the little manner of state's rights.
Article IV, Section 1 wrote: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.
Article IV, Section 2 wrote:The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 wrote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
Amendment XIV, Section 5 wrote:The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I will add that states have no rights. The people have rights. States have powers delegated to them. (That's the resurgent Amendment X, by the way.)
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms...
(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
After further reading it seems to me that the wording of this bill is just for political cover during an election season. These three lines give the individual States an out.
How about everyone do away with permits forever. If you can legally purchase a gun, you can carry it whenever and where ever you want, in any fashion you want.
I'll take it one further , If you can prove your age , you can buy the gun right then and there. No checks , no waiting ,
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
^^^
i'm confused. ::: scratches head :::
are you ok with a convicted felon, proving their age, and taking possession right there, "no checks - no waiting"?
“For life, liberty and Little Lizzie.” - John Connor (2005)
lonestarag wrote:The bill doesn't give the feds any regulatory power at all. Rather, it requires states that offer a permit to recognize permits from other states. Gun owners would have to follow any and every state law and local ordinance wherever they travel.
The bill hurts no one. It helps folks traveling through the handful of states with older "may issue" carry laws (including Maryland.) It does nothing for the people of Illinois and DC since they are the only remaining state and jurisdiction with no carry rights at all.
IAWTP.
The Federal government has a duty in the Constitution to make sure the privileges and immunities (as well as the privileges or immunities ) of the citizens are protected by the states
mk4 wrote:^^^
i'm confused. ::: scratches head :::
are you ok with a convicted felon, proving their age, and taking possession right there, "no checks - no waiting"?
I'd suggest a different thread to avoid derailing this one...it has been discussed before so the search tool may be of use. If you want to start that thread, I'm sure it will be lots of interesting discussion and fun.
Diomed wrote:
seeknulfind wrote:Not sure what exactly you are referencing here but I know of no wording in the Constitution giving the feds a free hand to dictate state law. There remains the little manner of state's rights.
Article IV, Section 1 wrote: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.
Article IV, Section 2 wrote:The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 wrote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
Amendment XIV, Section 5 wrote:The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I will add that states have no rights. The people have rights. States have powers delegated to them. (That's the resurgent Amendment X, by the way.)
Yes, the Feds were given certain powers which allowed them to break down the barriers between states (anyone want to guess why we had a Constitutional Convention in the first place?). Of course they promptly reinterpreted those powers to mean they could enact additional barriers, but who's keeping track of score anyways?
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
States don't have "rights" - absolutely correct in my view. My bad. I used age-old misused phrasing. Governments are granted certain powers by We the People.
And the feds do have constitutional power to ensure the states do not overstep the rights We the People have reserved for ourselves.
Even so, I cannot support this bill as I see it as a confirmation of the concept that the states somehow have some power to require a permit to carry. I would say "concealed" but this is not the case in all states. NYS, for example, one must have a permit to OWN a handgun. They call it a concealed carry permit but this is not the case in reality. For anyone who has moved to NY from someplace like VA with their handguns, I'm not sure how they view that, but it seems clear to me that the 2nd amendment should prevail.
My thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry:
1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”. These restrictions probably would not constitute “infringement”, however, the specific exclusions would be subject to SCOTUS review:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
3. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in May-Issue States as well as the prohibition for Concealed Carry in Illinois and Washington DC, would probably constitute an “infringement” and should be declared such by the SCOTUS.
This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!
Inquisitor wrote:
This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!
“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the Federal Government OR the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.” The RIGHT (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved to) the people.
Eventually, I hope, SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: “By what definition of 'shall not be infringed' is regulation of how and where the 'right to keep and bear arms' is exercised, NOT an infringement?”.
Below are the applicable sections of the US Constitution:
The United States Constitution
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
· · ·
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
[The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."]
The Amendments
AMENDMENT II - Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT X - Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
· · ·
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If you read my last 2 posts, you will see that I am coming to the point of saying that under very limited rules all States should be "shall issue", that all States should issue actual permits (Vermont doesn't but should for interstate travel), and all States should be required to recognize all other States' CCW permits. Between H.R. 822 and H.R. 2900, I am leaning toward H.R. 2900 except for the paragraph that covers States that don't issue permits (because then there is no proof that you have been vetted under step 2 of my Constitution and Concealed Carry post).
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
) of the citizens are protected by the states
