National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017

[NickJamisonNC]

Haha I bet more than half of these are changed by the time the liberal f-tards take office again: https://www.nationalcarryacademy.com/state-laws

 

[since9]

Not sure what you're trying to imply, but the discussion concerning national reciprocity legislation on this forum started at least as far back as March of 2015, and many valid reasons were offered in opposition to it by the most vociferous Second Amendment advocates on the site within the 1,336 replies in that thread. Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before trying to tag opponents as "backing off gun-supporting legislation" due to either one jackwagon going off the rails, or a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder.

Blues

Seriously? You demand that I go through 1,336 replies instead of forming my own fresh opinion on the issue, relatively void of the opinions of others, but armed with a lifetime of experience and knowledge?

You may not be new to this forum, but you're apparently new to how to best elicit high-value responses on message forums in general. Forcing people to conform to some "We've already discussed this -- get with the program" horse hockey is not the way it's done.

Perhaps your own advice is what you need the most: "Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before" going off half-cocked with a bunch of cockamamie nonsense about going off the rails, government conspiracies, or whatever you I actually said.

Hint: I'm rather clear and concise, yet thorough. If you're reading between the lines, you're wasting your time.

And mine.

 

[BluesStringer]

Seriously? You demand that I go through 1,336 replies instead of forming my own fresh opinion on the issue, relatively void of the opinions of others, but armed with a lifetime of experience and knowledge?

You may not be new to this forum, but you're apparently new to how to best elicit high-value responses on message forums in general. Forcing people to conform to some "We've already discussed this -- get with the program" horse hockey is not the way it's done.

Perhaps your own advice is what you need the most: "Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before" going off half-cocked with a bunch of cockamamie nonsense about going off the rails, government conspiracies, or whatever you I actually said.

Hint: I'm rather clear and concise, yet thorough. If you're reading between the lines, you're wasting your time.

And mine.

OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge, here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment. If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway, your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed. If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework. I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:

From the text of the bill:

"may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.

 

[AC Orange]

OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge, here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment. If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway, your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed. If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework. I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:

.
I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...

 

[niceshootintex]

.
I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...

The interesting part, and I've stated this here before, is that the gun industry is fine with it. The NRA all the way down to LGS owners I know and many members of our club are fooled by this. Or theyre not[emoji848].

Blues and NavyLCDR have done a great job getting the pitfalls of this commerce clause power grab the visibility it truly deserves. I can understand why members that live in states that offer poor reciprocity and restrictive licensing see this as a lifeline but they're actually throwing us an anchor. This bill is the epitome of a slippery slope and is actually anti 2A to its core. If this is passed and it goes to the courts through state lawsuits, it will be a bad outcome and you can bet on it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Link Removed

 

[XD40scinNC]

.
I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...

The only one that really waved the flag for this, the person that started this thread, lives in a state where he has to take an legal ad out in a newspaper saying he wants to apply for a concealed carry permit, and even if it is granted, he is trapped in his tiny state as none of the neighboring states honor any other states carry permits. And for his own selfish reasons he is more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus by allowing a federal bureaucrat, probably appointed, not elected to dictate the rules of concealed carry.

I don't know that he has ever figured out what a disaster this will likely be, if passed, and has gone off to pout and probably champion it on a forum where his views are not challenge.

 

[niceshootintex]

The only one that really waved the flag for this, the person that started this thread, lives in a state where he has to take an legal ad out in a newspaper saying he wants to apply for a concealed carry permit, and even if it is granted, he is trapped in his tiny state as none of the neighboring states honor any other states carry permits. And for his own selfish reasons he is more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus by allowing a federal bureaucrat, probably appointed, not elected to dictate the rules of concealed carry.

I don't know that he has ever figured out what a disaster this will likely be, if passed, and has gone off to pout and probably champion it on a forum where his views are not challenge.

All true and I sort of get why he would desperately cling to this "freedom" the politicians were dangling in front of him but I eventually got worn out by his selfish quest and started [emoji354]'ing him. He was on a month or so ago talking about a family range shoot and glad he's doing well but I vehemently opposed his sacrificing what scraps of 2A we have still at the state levels for this federal power grab.

He's being held hostage by his state laws and he's maybe stuck there for various reasons. We are retiring in another state in the not too distant future for three primary reasons. Taxes, weather, and firearms laws. There are also other considerations but those are the drivers.

Sent from my XT1650 using Link Removed

 

[since9]

OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge...

Thank you. A fair amount, anyway.

here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment.

Do you know of any other way for the feds to force the states to accept one another's CC permits? From what I understand, the commerce clause is precisely the same tack the feds used to get the states to respect DLs from other states. I might be wrong about that.

If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway

I did.

your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed.

I'm well aware of the court cases keeping the feds in check on interstate commerce, as well.

If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework.

Oh, gee, thanks for the lecture. Whatever would I do without you?

[qutoe]I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. [/quote]

I never asked.

I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:

Fed-mandated reciprocity is not ideal. The question is it any better than the current scatterbrained hodgepodge of reciprocity agreements between states? That depends a great deal on your home state and desired states of travel. It would LIKE to be able to travel anywhere in the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, via any means of transportation (save road vehicle to AK, as that transits Canada, and obviously no roads to Hawaii).

However, as I'm not willing to accept further infringements against my right to keep and bear arms, I'd prefer the entire country simply move to Constitutional Carry for both open and concealed.

Last time I checked, only 18 states have so moved, and most of those still have some restrictions.

Thus, I ask you: What's you're plan to get the other 32 states on board with Constitutional Carry?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip- From what I understand, the commerce clause is precisely the same tack the feds used to get the states to respect DLs from other states. I might be wrong about that.-snip-

The comparison between concealed carry permit national reciprocity and driver license acceptance between states is flawed. With concealed carry permit reciprocity it would be the Federal government mandating/requiring and controlling how States treat carry permits. But with driver license acceptance between States it is the individual States themselves that voluntarily entered into the Drivers License Agreement which is an agreement between States without Federal mandate.

https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/AAMVA%20Driver%20License%20Agreement%20text.pdf

Edited to correct Driver License Compact to Drivers License Agreement.

Here is the Drivers License Compact:

National Center for Interstate Compacts Database

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm well aware of the court cases keeping the feds in check on interstate commerce, as well.

Would you care to share those court cases with us please? Are you familiar with Wickard v. Filburn? Filburn was a farmer who was growing wheat on his own farm to feed to his own farm animals. The wheat never left his farm, it was for his own use on his own farm. The US Supreme Court ruled that he violated the law in place at the time limiting the amount of wheat farmers could grow and market to keep wheat prices higher. Why? Because they stated that because Filburn was growing his own wheat he was not purchasing wheat from the market and, therefore, the act of growing wheat on his own farm for his own use affected interstate commerce and was therefore subject to regulation by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/case.html

You assertion that the courts keep the feds in check on interstate commerce is erroneous. The courts have ruled time and time again that basically the Federal government can regulate ANYTHING based upon the interstate commerce clause because if an individual acts alone (IE grows their own wheat for their own use) they are affecting interstate commerce by not purchasing it from the open market.

And that is why I am against National Reciprocity based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause - because it would grant the Federal government the authority to regulate concealed carry even more than they do. Just like the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act which prohibits carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' feet of school premises - a prohibition relying upon an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The act of carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school has NO affect on interstate commerce - but the courts have ruled the government can prohibit it if the gun itself affected interstate commerce. And even if you made the gun yourself from iron ore on your own property - it affected interstate commerce because you didn't buy iron to make steel on the open market.

 

[BluesStringer]

Do you know of any other way for the feds to force the states to accept one another's CC permits?

That "force the states" to comply with federal mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with respecting individual rights, has such a "liberty and justice for all" ring to it, doesn't it though?

Otherwise, basing reciprocity legislation on the Second Amendment rights of the people who would benefit from it is the only constitutional way I can think of. It wouldn't be "forcing" anything upon the states except that which they previously and voluntarily agreed to in order to become states.

From what I understand, the commerce clause is precisely the same tack the feds used to get the states to respect DLs from other states. I might be wrong about that.

You are.

I did.

Then like I said, your "experience and knowledge" don't mean squat to me. Even in the face of the "knowledge" that there's no Second Amendment right being addressed in H.R. 38, only the authority of government to regulate those rights, you are willing to trade yours and my rights away for the temporary privileges the federal government may grant us, and get absolutely nothing in the way of restoration of rights for it in return.

I'm well aware of the court cases keeping the feds in check on interstate commerce, as well.

Yeah, sure. Respond to Navy's drubbing of this obvious lie, or remain being seen as wholly dishonest, uninformed and not credible in this discussion from here on out.

Oh, gee, thanks for the lecture. Whatever would I do without you?

Even with me, you're doggedly holding onto a state of ignorance, advocating against your own (and the rest of our) liberty-interests, and making stuff up just to sound like you actually know what you're talking about when clearly you don't.

Fed-mandated reciprocity is not ideal. The question is it any better than the current scatterbrained hodgepodge of reciprocity agreements between states?

Working within your own state to restore rights is just too hard of a job, eh? My state already accepts permits from every other state. We fought hard to have that included in the first major revision of the carry laws here since 1903 in 2013. Thank me. I'm welcome. Several states have adopted the same 100% reciprocity grant since then. Get to work, and maybe your state will do the same. The more that do it, the more will follow, and the less "force" by the federal government it will take to make it the normalized trend across the country.

That depends a great deal on your home state and desired states of travel. It would LIKE to be able to travel anywhere in the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, via any means of transportation (save road vehicle to AK, as that transits Canada, and obviously no roads to Hawaii).

Man, your vast experience and knowledge has let you down to the point of displaying terminal naiveté here. CA, HI, OR, WA, CT, MD, NY and several more states will file for a federal injunction against HR38 being implemented before the ink on Trump's signature is even dry, and they'll get it too. If there's a severability clause in the final draft of the bill, the courts from the first level to SCOTUS will keep the regulatory authority in the bill, but overrule the "forcing" language of nationwide reciprocity upon the states, probably feigning fealty to the Tenth Amendment's states' rights language, and the fed will be left with the Commerce Clause having "constitutional" regulatory authority over the rights expressed in the Second Amendment. Your permit will never be recognized as valid when you're in any of the states that join in that suit, and the Second Amendment will virtually have no meaning at all forevermore.

Thus, I ask you: What's you're plan to get the other 32 states on board with Constitutional Carry?

I live in Alabama. I have worked extensively to get changes to the gun laws here enacted and/or revised. The other 49 states can (and do) run their states as they see fit under the Constitution. The only constitutional method for "forcing" them to adapt to constitutional carry is for SCOTUS to recognize its own rulings (in Heller and McDonald) that the Second Amendment acknowledges and was intended to protect for perpetuity, the fundamental natural and individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS is the only government entity that can fix the problem. Commerce Clause-based legislation is the last infringement needed by statists everywhere to make fixing the problem impossible, and if you continue to support it, it will be you and every other ignorant, overly-trusting-of-government gun owner who also supported it, who the rest of us will blame for the many Commerce Clause-based restrictions that will follow shortly after it's passed and signed. So Mr. Experience and Knowledge, thanks for nothin'.

Blues

 

[since9]

Would you care to share those court cases with us please?

If you're so inclined, you're free to research them yourself. If you're needing assistance, make me an offer hiring me as a legal researcher via PM. Otherwise, no.

Are you familiar with Wickard v. Filburn? Filburn was a farmer who was growing wheat on his own farm to feed to his own farm animals. The wheat never left his farm, it was for his own use on his own farm. The US Supreme Court ruled that he violated the law in place at the time limiting the amount of wheat farmers could grow and market to keep wheat prices higher. Why? Because they stated that because Filburn was growing his own wheat he was not purchasing wheat from the market and, therefore, the act of growing wheat on his own farm for his own use affected interstate commerce and was therefore subject to regulation by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That is messed up. Did SCOTUS ever reverse themselves on this matter, as they're occasionally prone to do? If not, have you written your members of Congress, highlighting the issue as you just described, and proposing legislation to negate the Court's ruling?

Let's take a look at the ruling you mentioned, shall we?

Only when he threshed, and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat overhanging the market, did he become subject to penalty. He has made no effort to show that the value of his excess wheat consumed without threshing was less than it would have been had it been threshed while subject to the statutory provisions in force at the time of planting. Concurrently with the increase in the amount of the penalty, Congress authorized a substantial increase in the amount of the loan which might be made to cooperators upon stored farm marketing excess wheat. That appellee is the worse off for the aggregate of this legislation does not appear; it only appears that, if he could get all that the Government gives and do nothing that the Government asks, he would be better off than this law allows. To deny him this is not to deny him due process of law. Cf. Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38.​

Bottom line, he was given a premium, government-subsidized loan not available to the market as a whole, in exchange for his promise to grow only so much wheat as allowed in the allotment specified by the loan agreement. The moment he produced extra wheat beyond that allotment, he violate the agreement, regardless of what he did with the wheat, thereby subjecting himself to penalty in violation of the contract.

What you're missing here, Lieutenant Commander, is the reason as to why the government caps wheat in the first place, which is to limit supply, thereby driving up prices just enough to maintain an economically viable reservoir of wheat production. Without it, overproduction would drive prices down too far, ruining many producers and resulting in a lack of acceptable strategic reserve.

As a U.S. Naval Officer, if you are indeed one, you should know full well that the nature of strategic reserves apply to more than tanks, planes, and ships. It also applies to everything from food to steel to transportation production, servicing, and fueling capacity. Certain medicines are listed as strategic reserves and their production is protected by our government as such.

And that is why I am against National Reciprocity based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause - because it would grant the Federal government the authority to regulate concealed carry even more than they do.

I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges, or in this case, wheat and handguns. Individually owned firearms are indeed listed as a strategic reserve, but only insofar that those of us We the People who're armed make up the unorganized militia, which composes the "Reserve Militia," defined by law as "every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia" (Beard, Charles Austin: Readings in American Government and Politics, Page 308. Macmillan, 1909).

You do understand the nature of the Naval Militia, do you not, Lieutenant Commander?

Just like the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act which prohibits carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' feet of school premises - a prohibition relying upon an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The act of carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school has NO affect on interstate commerce - but the courts have ruled the government can prohibit it if the gun itself affected interstate commerce. And even if you made the gun yourself from iron ore on your own property - it affected interstate commerce because you didn't buy iron to make steel on the open market.

Wrong again, in that the two do not compare, for there is no payment, subsidy, or contract by which the carriers of firearms can be held accountable or penalized.

Put simply, the farmer received value in the form of favorable loan rates (subsidies) in exchange for agreeing not to produce wheat above a certain quota.

Not only does Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as amended and enacted September 30, 1996 involve no such consideration (that's a legal term in contract law), thereby absent any contractual basis, but it also directly violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as clearly stated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting any and all infringements without regard as to their nature.

 

[since9]

...your "experience and knowledge" don't mean squat to me.

Fair enough. Back at 'ya.

Even with me, you're doggedly holding onto a state of ignorance...

Congrats. You're half-way to being put on ignore.

...advocating against your own (and the rest of our) liberty-interests...

The exact opposite, in fact. I'm a staunch Constitutionalist. I'm surprised you failed to recognize that.

...and making stuff up...

Calling me a liar moves you up to the three-quarter mark of being put on ignore.

...just to sound like you actually know what you're talking about when clearly you don't.

And... There it is. Calling me ignorant pushes you the rest of the way over the ignore line in the sand. Have fun talking to yourself.

In deference to others, I'll finish this response:

My state already accepts permits from every other state.

I don't live in "every other state," and neither do you. The goal is to get all states to accept CC permits from the state in which I (as well as everyone else) lives. Nearly all states have some restrictions as to which states they chose not to recognize permits.

Thank me. I'm welcome.

You're needing a much larger hat.

The more that do it, the more will follow, and the less "force" by the federal government it will take to make it the normalized trend across the country.

In a perfect world... Furthermore, I have no interest in the feds forcing the states to do something. I'm interested in the feds stopping Constitutionally unlawful behavior. The feds have a long history of stopping states from infringing on individual rights, from segregation to discrimination to unfair business practices, labor law, and all aspects of contract law.

I'm interested stopping states from engaging in Constitutionally unlawful infringement against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If I were to take your overly-idealistic approach, I'd call for the feds to simply recognize what's already in the Constitution: carry anything, in any mode, anywhere, and at any time. As I previously mentioned, 18 states have implemented "constitutional carry," but only a small few have no restrictions (infringements).

Idealism is not realistic.

Since I'm a realist, I'll get what I can get while continuing to push for more i.e. CC reciprocity now and pushing for more states to adopt Constitutional Carry as time goes on.

Man, your vast experience and knowledge has let you down to the point of displaying terminal naiveté here.

Thanks for confirming your ignore status. Don't waste your time replying to this. I won't be reading it, not with your gross ladling of insults.

CA, HI, OR, WA, CT, MD, NY and several more states will file for a federal injunction against HR38 being implemented before the ink on Trump's signature is even dry, and they'll get it too. If there's a severability clause in the final draft of the bill, the courts from the first level to SCOTUS will keep the regulatory authority in the bill, but overrule the "forcing" language of nationwide reciprocity upon the states, probably feigning fealty to the Tenth Amendment's states' rights language, and the fed will be left with the Commerce Clause having "constitutional" regulatory authority over the rights expressed in the Second Amendment. Your permit will never be recognized as valid when you're in any of the states that join in that suit, and the Second Amendment will virtually have no meaning at all forevermore.

Given the facts that OC is legal in 45 states, CC is legal in 48 states (supposed to be 50, but one state and D.C. keep screwing that up), and 18 states have Constitutional Carry, your arguments fearful of nearly every state joining in that suit make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever, utterly paranoid.

The only constitutional method for "forcing" them to adapt to constitutional carry is for SCOTUS to recognize its own rulings (in Heller and McDonald) that the Second Amendment acknowledges and was intended to protect for perpetuity, the fundamental natural and individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS is the only government entity that can fix the problem.

Not at all. Congress can strengthen Second Amendment federal legislation. Provided SCOTUS rules it Constitutional, we're good. If they don't, a two-thirds Congressional vote and three-quarter ratification can override SCOTUS with an amendment MAKING it Constitutional. With 45 states (90%) supporting OC and 48 states (96%) supporting CC, it's not a stretch to believe the states would ratify reasonable pro-2A legislation in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

The problem is convincing the idiot half of Congress to side with the Constitution.

Commerce Clause-based legislation is the last infringement needed by statists everywhere to make fixing the problem impossible, and if you continue to support it, it will be you and every other ignorant, overly-trusting...

Blah, blah...

Bye.

 

[BluesStringer]

The exact opposite, in fact. I'm a staunch Constitutionalist. I'm surprised you failed to recognize that.

You're a statist. You rely on Congress, and to a lesser degree, the courts, to tell you what your rights are when the Constitution already articulates the 10 most important ones as preexisting for every human being. A constitutionalist relies on the Constitution and argues from a position of strength and being law-abiding in using the Constitution to clamp down on government overreach. A statist supports overreach as though government is above them, or maybe more to the point, above the people whose rights are being violated by government, but violated in such a way that benefits the statist somehow. Commerce Clause-based national reciprocity highlights the difference(s) between statist and constitutionalist quite clearly.

I don't live in "every other state," and neither do you. The goal is to get all states to accept CC permits from the state in which I (as well as everyone else) lives. Nearly all states have some restrictions as to which states they chose not to recognize permits.

Like I said, working to get your own state in line is just too tough a job. Daddy Fed's "force" is always the alternative to working hard at the local and state levels for the statist.

As to the bold part, again, you're ignorant of what you talk about. As of April 17, 2018, 18 states accept all other states' permits, and many of those also accept permits from U.S. territories to boot. That's 36% of states that do accept all, not "nearly all" of the states that restrict certain states' permits as valid within their own state. In 2013 when Alabama started accepting them all, I think there were only four or five states that preceded us in that. It is at this point, a verifiable trend towards successes at the state level for the same kind of voluntary cooperation between states that drivers' licensure enjoys across all states, something which also took awhile to be completed. Conversely, whenever Daddy Fed is given more power to regulate the states, that's exactly what it does. Maybe Trump and the current Republican Congress are being honest that all they'll do with the extra power is enforce the letter and spirit of HR38 (though history proves that only a blithering idiot would believe such nonsense), but what about when the Dems take power back? What about when SCOTUS is even more liberal than it already is? Unfortunately for The People's rights, federal-empowering laws don't change every 2, 4, 8 or a lifetime of years like legislators, presidents and SCOTUS justices do. The Commerce Clause is a Trojan Horse that one or the other, or both, parties will use at some as-yet undetermined time in the future to limit our rights just like it did in NFA34, GCA68, Gun Free Zones legislation, and literally dozens upon dozens of 2A-unrelated cases and legislation throughout this country's history.

In a perfect world... Furthermore, I have no interest in the feds forcing the states to do something.

Yeah, right.

Do you know of any other way for the feds to force the states to accept one another's CC permits?

If there's a petard anywhere in your vicinity, I would run from it like your hair's on fire.

I'm interested in the feds stopping Constitutionally unlawful behavior. The feds have a long history of stopping states from infringing on individual rights, from segregation to discrimination to unfair business practices, labor law, and all aspects of contract law.

What about stopping states from infringing on the Second Amendment? Or stopping themselves for that matter? You do realize that that's what we're discussing here, right?

I'm interested stopping states from engaging in Constitutionally unlawful infringement against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And your solution for stopping that is to put the Second Amendment under the auspices of government's authority to regulate contained within the Interstate Commerce Clause? Pffffft.

If I were to take your overly-idealistic approach, I'd call for the feds to simply recognize what's already in the Constitution: carry anything, in any mode, anywhere, and at any time. As I previously mentioned, 18 states have implemented "constitutional carry," but only a small few have no restrictions (infringements).

You're all over the place. First of all, I'm pretty sure it's 14 states that have constitutional carry, but whatever, we're talking about the fed taking over the already-unconstitutional concept of having to ask and pay for the privilege of carrying a weapon under its authority to regulate within the Commerce Clause. We're not talking about constitutional carry, and it's for damn sure that we'll never get it once the fed is codified in law to have control over carry issues of any description under the Commerce Clause. If the fed can "force" a state like CA to accept another state's permission slips as valid, it can do the exact opposite by forcing states that issue permits to do it like CA, or worse, HI does (actually, doesn't) do it. That's what the authority to regulate means!

Idealism is not realistic.

Neither is putting the already-unconstitutional permit schemes of the states under the auspices of the federal government's authority to regulate a "realistic" solution to restoring the rights of The People under the Second Amendment.

Whenever a statist wishes to diminish an argument that's based solely on the unambiguous language of the Second Amendment, they start in with that "idealistic" nonsense as they make the case for the federal government wandering ever-further from doing its duty to protect and defend that same unambiguous language. Trading a fundamental, God-given right for the authority of government to regulate it is the dumbest idea gun owners, the NRA, GOA, SAF or phony "constitutionalists" ever came up with.

Since I'm a realist, I'll get what I can get while continuing to push for more i.e. CC reciprocity now and pushing for more states to adopt Constitutional Carry as time goes on.

If James Madison wanted the Second Amendment to be controlled by the federal government, he would've attached it to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 where the Commerce Clause is written. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of government to regulate the right though, so it appears right where it belongs, and it says what it means and means what it says. If you're not "pushing" for at least that much fealty to the Constitution from your government, and instead "pushing" for them to "force" states into compliance with their illegal diktats, you prove by your own words that your claim of being a "constitutionalist" is as dishonest as your claims that you're "well aware" of the courts putting limits on Congress that prevent overreaching use of the Commerce Clause. The examples of the courts limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause is analogous to a flea farting in the wind. The overreaching expansion of the same scope of the same clause is incalculable in the damage it's done to the rights of The People.

Given the facts that OC is legal in 45 states, CC is legal in 48 states (supposed to be 50, but one state and D.C. keep screwing that up), and 18 states have Constitutional Carry, your arguments fearful of nearly every state joining in that suit make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever, utterly paranoid.

We're not talking about constitutional carry vs. permitted carry, we're talking about carry laws coming from the fed and applying across the board once HR38 is passed. And one state plus D.C. still only equals 49 states (so which state are you leaving out of the equation, and which one are you including?), at least three of the 14 or 18 constitutional carry states are in disputes with their state supreme courts over whether or not it's a valid interpretation of either statute or court rulings to call them such, and you really missed the mark on what I meant about states that file and/or join the suit for injunction against HR38 ever being implemented if/when passed. On that last item, I meant that the federal government will "force" the more lenient states to adapt to the least lenient states' permitting schemes once they get their hooks into permitting schemes via the Commerce Clause. It could be a legislative or court ruling "fix" for the "inequities" of each state having its own scheme. No government in the history of history has ever granted more autonomously-exercised power to sovereign jurisdictions once it has wrested such powers from their sovereign control, and certainly the U.S. government has never been an exception, and it won't be in this case either. If there's "forced" "compromise" to be had if/when HR38 passes, the states that are most restrictive of gun rights will be the model for the rest of the states. That's always what happens when a right is traded for the authority of government to regulate!

Not at all. Congress can strengthen Second Amendment federal legislation. Provided SCOTUS rules it Constitutional, we're good. If they don't, a two-thirds Congressional vote and three-quarter ratification can override SCOTUS with an amendment MAKING it Constitutional. With 45 states (90%) supporting OC and 48 states (96%) supporting CC, it's not a stretch to believe the states would ratify reasonable pro-2A legislation in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

The problem is convincing the idiot half of Congress to side with the Constitution.

Like I said earlier, terminal naiveté is what you suffer from.

Blah, blah...

Indeed. Exactly what I was thinking about the post I'm replying to.

Bye.

You don't strike me as the type to withdraw so easily, but if you actually are, it won't bother me at all to have the last word in this exchange be this post. Also if you are so easily moved to withdrawal rather than engagement, all I can say is ahh..... The sweet smell of surrender.

Blues