Even at the expense of State's rights with an expansion of unconstitutional Federal power?
That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face...
U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
- Thread starter pinkhamr
- Start Date
Even at the expense of State's rights with an expansion of unconstitutional Federal power?
That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face...
My beef with this bill is that it further legitimizes state laws that infringe on the RKBA.
Now if Congress passed a law mandating nationwide constitutional carry, I would probably support it, because of Congress' authority under the 14th Amendment:
14th Amendment Section 1: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
14th Amendment Section 2: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is implicated by all three of the items mentioned in Section 1 (life, liberty, and property), and I believe that any form of prior restraint on that right (including a licensure requirement) is a violation.
I suppose the CC reciprocity bill lessens the infringement a little bit, since it would basically force all states to accept licenses from the state with the least requirements -- for example it would force all states to honor my Maine non-resident permit, which doesn't require fingerprinting, only costs $60, and whose training requirement can be met by taking a 20 minute online class... but it still legitimizes an infringement by requiring a person to have some form of permission slip from a state government in order to be granted reciprocity, and it expressly states that all state requirements for licensees are still in effect (officer notification, prohibited places, etc.)
I suppose it could start a "race to the bottom," for states with the least restrictive CCL requirements... one state could conceivably start printing out documents titled "concealed carry permit" and issuing them to anyone who wants one, from any state, for the cost of copying, and according to this bill's language all other states would be required to accept it.
Now if Congress passed a law mandating nationwide constitutional carry, I would probably support it, because of Congress' authority under the 14th Amendment:
14th Amendment Section 1: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
14th Amendment Section 2: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is implicated by all three of the items mentioned in Section 1 (life, liberty, and property), and I believe that any form of prior restraint on that right (including a licensure requirement) is a violation.
I suppose the CC reciprocity bill lessens the infringement a little bit, since it would basically force all states to accept licenses from the state with the least requirements -- for example it would force all states to honor my Maine non-resident permit, which doesn't require fingerprinting, only costs $60, and whose training requirement can be met by taking a 20 minute online class... but it still legitimizes an infringement by requiring a person to have some form of permission slip from a state government in order to be granted reciprocity, and it expressly states that all state requirements for licensees are still in effect (officer notification, prohibited places, etc.)
I suppose it could start a "race to the bottom," for states with the least restrictive CCL requirements... one state could conceivably start printing out documents titled "concealed carry permit" and issuing them to anyone who wants one, from any state, for the cost of copying, and according to this bill's language all other states would be required to accept it.
Since McDonald and Heller, that's basically left up to the Courts to decide.
There are longstanding prohibitions in place, and those prohibitions are to be presumed as Constitutional until decided otherwise.
The part of Section 1 you quoted (the Due Process Clause) does not authorize Congress to mandate Constitutional carry among the several states. However, another part (the Privileges or Immunities Clause) does. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". However, the Supreme Court refuses to revisit and fix the flawed precedents that neuter Privileges or Immunities even after admitting themselves in McDonald that the precedents are flawed and merit revisiting. The only reason given to not revisit those precedents is that they weren't addressed directly.
But according to McDonald, the Second Amendment is a "right" conferred by the government and subject to due process, rather than a Right protected by the Constitution and therefore a Privilege or Immunity of being a United States citizen. And that is exactly what the NRA wanted when they took the case. Due Process incorporation opened the door to a vastly expanded industry of Second Amendment litigation, which is what organizations like the NRA need to stay in business. Privileges or Immunities incorporation would have severely limited threats to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and "2A-protection" organizations can't exactly stay in business without a threat.
Now it's up to the Court to decide what level of scrutiny infringements upon the Second Amendment should be subject to. Under Due Process, the level of scrutiny required by the Court will determine what is and isn't an infringement. Thanks to the NRA's best efforts in McDonald, the best we can hope for in protecting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is for the Court to go with a requirement of strict scrutiny and hope to God we don't get a decision setting rational basis as the standard. Even intermediate/heightened scrutiny will result in an unacceptable level of infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
there are plenty of federal laws that restrict the RKBA that could be regarded as unconstitutional. I fail to see why the one Bill that actually makes it easier to conceal carry should become the bill we all pick on; let's accept the reality that the federal government has already meddled in the RKBA way way way beyond what they should have according to the Constitution. I don't think this particular bill goes beyond what they have already done. It seems to only make it easier for CCwers to carry across state lines.
Perhaps those who are against this should also question the other federal intrusions that already exist, do nothing to make it easier to keep or bear arms, and are already established law. To sum up, this bill is not doing any further damage than has already been done and has lots of benefit to CCWers. hence I support it, but as I said before I am not holding my breath that it will ever pass.
here's a crazy idea: maybe we need a constitutional amendment that unambiguously says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...u know.. to make all these intrusions that have already taken place since 1928 unconstitutional.
Perhaps those who are against this should also question the other federal intrusions that already exist, do nothing to make it easier to keep or bear arms, and are already established law. To sum up, this bill is not doing any further damage than has already been done and has lots of benefit to CCWers. hence I support it, but as I said before I am not holding my breath that it will ever pass.
here's a crazy idea: maybe we need a constitutional amendment that unambiguously says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...u know.. to make all these intrusions that have already taken place since 1928 unconstitutional.
Last edited:
there are plenty of federal laws that restrict the RKBA that could be regarded as unconstitutional. I fail to see why the one Bill that actually makes it easier to conceal carry should become the bill we all pick on, I mean let;s acccept the reality that the federal government has already meddled in the RKBA way way way beyond what they should have according to the Constitution. I don;t think this particular bill goes beyond what they have already done. It seems to be only make it easier for CCwers to carry across state lines.
Perhaps those who are against this should also question the other federal intrusions that already exist, do nothing to make it easier to keep or bear arms, and are already established law.
here's a crazy idea: maybe we need a constitutional amendment that unambiguously says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...u know.. to make all these intrusions unconstitutional.
So, to sum it up...
Here's another flaw in this bill: It doesn't contain a mechanism to enforce this law on the several states, and, of course, provides no funding to enforce it. It also does not prohibit the Court from prosecuting you for violating a state law that this bill supposedly preempts. If this bill passes, and If you get arrested in a state that doesn't recognize your permit, you're on your own!
Woody
Woody
But Woody, you know "they" wouldn't screw gun owners like that!
I am posting a letter from National Association For Gun Rights. It was against the bill and have a pretty valid point as to why it now needs to be defeated in the Senate. Please read below:
Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.
Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).
The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly pro-gun Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.
You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to verify out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress must create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.
One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.
Its bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, theyll do it -- all the in the name of implementing H.R. 822.
The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.
What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, theyve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:
"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.
Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."
Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the governments hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.
For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.
Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).
The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly pro-gun Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.
You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to verify out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress must create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.
One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.
Its bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, theyll do it -- all the in the name of implementing H.R. 822.
The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.
What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, theyve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:
"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.
Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."
Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the governments hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.
For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
Any member of Congress can request an OMB study on any topic at any time for any reason, whether attached to legislation or not.
It is disappointing to see such a rant aboout a complete non-issue as an OMB study. Some people favor and some oppose the bill for Constitutional reasons that are worth discussing, but the OMB study rant is pointless, and ill-inofrmed---or intentionally misleading.
This.
Similar threads
