National concealed carry?


swifteagle

New member
Does anyone else find the current difficulty of concealed or open carry as we travel from state to state a bit ridiculous? For example, why can't Washington, Oregon, Nevada, & California recognize the validity of my Arizona CCW permit? Traveling is one of the least safe things we do as many predators look for travelers. Why then is my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms infringed by all these other States?

Anyone have ideas on how we can fix this problem? I'm thinking Federal legislation that requires reciprocity from state to state for travelers similar to marriage & drivers licenses might be a good start. Even better would be a Federal law saying that the states are not allowed to infringe on our right to bear arms. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say we can bear arms as long as we are not in our car or walking down a city street?
 

Torch

New member
Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th ammendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.
 

rabywk

New member
Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th ammendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.

Torch,

You don't live in IL!!!!!! :mad:
 

Torch

New member
I suppose if I lived in an anti state that I'd have a differnt outlook. Sorry for being so short sighted. Still, I think the answer is to let the states decide this issue. If the right to carry is granted at the federal level then the elimination of the same right is at the federal level. That scares this Texan.
 

Packingpadre

New member
I also believe reciprocity should be left to the states, but Legislatures must make it easier for agreements to be worked out. Until this year, Maine allowed the State Police chief to negotiate reciprocity with only two states, so nothing was done. The 2007 Legislature passed a bill, signed into law by the governor, that allows for unlimited reciprocity agreements. So far, no results, but I know it will take time. I had to get a New Hampshire non-resident permit just to carry through that state to visit family in Vermont, one of the sanest states in the nation on concealed carry.

Dan
"An armed society is a polite society." Robert Heinlein
 
I'm Against National Gun Anything

National CCW would be de facto recognition and "approval" by Congress of all the unconstitutional law in the several states that makes bearing arms illegal, necessitating the creation of concealed carry permit laws - which are actually exceptions to the laws against carrying concealed arms. I believe our goal should be the removal of the unconstitutional laws that are in the way of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms instead.

There is no logical reason to infringe upon the RKBA unless you are a tyrannical despotic dictator.

The current reciprocity agreements and/or state-to-state permit recognitions are sufficient for the time being. I wouldn't entrench the permit system any deeper than it is now. Involving the Union in this process will placate too many of us - to the point that this battle to unfetter our rights will be put on the back burner (if left on the stove at all). We can't afford another segment of our brethren to be placated like the majority of the police community we lost when HR 218 became law.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
The 10th Amendment only applies to issues which are not addressed within The Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment most certainly precludes any valid states' rights claims of authority to control the issue. States should have no authority to infringe on any aspect of our free exercise of any constitutionally-recognized right. If you have to ask your state government for permission and/or pay them to exercise your God-given, unalienable federal rights, just how much weight do those rights carry to begin with?

The only concealed weapons permit any law-abiding citizen should have to possess is that which we were all born with; the 2nd Amendment. I believe all CWPs are unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment doesn't even enter into the equation as far as I'm concerned.

Blues
 

ishi

New member
National CCW would be de facto recognition and "approval" by Congress of all the unconstitutional law in the several states that makes bearing arms illegal, necessitating the creation of concealed carry permit laws - which are actually exceptions to the laws against carrying concealed arms. I believe our goal should be the removal of the unconstitutional laws that are in the way of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms instead.

There is no logical reason to infringe upon the RKBA unless you are a tyrannical despotic dictator.

The current reciprocity agreements and/or state-to-state permit recognitions are sufficient for the time being. I wouldn't entrench the permit system any deeper than it is now. Involving the Union in this process will placate too many of us - to the point that this battle to unfetter our rights will be put on the back burner (if left on the stove at all). We can't afford another segment of our brethren to be placated like the majority of the police community we lost when HR 218 became law.

Woody

Woody, thanks for a thought-provoking piece well-rooted in constitutional law. For those that aren't familiar with HR 218, it created a federal exemption to concealed carry laws for LEOs, implicitly recognizing state bans on citizen concealed carry as legitimate.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Most of you have probably seen this before, but here's Ted Nugent making reference, among others, to the topic at hand. The guy isn't my favorite guitar player or singer or songwriter, but he is definitely my favorite articulator of 2nd Amendment advocacy. His logic is impeccable. His knowledge of history and constitutional intent, and his ability to convey both, is inspirational. He maybe could improve on his manners, but truthfully, his brutal honesty and bluntness is as attractive to me as the righteousness of the concepts he argues in favor of. Anyway, it's 3 minutes of your time that won't be wasted.

Blues
 

ElZorro

New member
SwiftEagle, you've got it partly right, HOWEVER

Marriage and driving licenses are not universally recognized by any Federal mandate. It's all reciprocity between the STATE Governments.

Witness the spate of state law amendments after some states recognized "same-sex" marriages; many states specifically redacted their full recognization of those states' marriage licenses, eliminating the same-sex.

Also; driving license reciprocity is managed by a private organization that coordinates with the various states' DOTs to keep us all driving nonchalantly across state lines.

A similar organization and cooperation by the states could easily handle this idiotic "national CCW" idea.

BTW, Nugent nowhere addresses this idea of national licensing but, rather, espouses the clear fact that 2A doesn't exclude compliance by the states, so we defacto already have universal carry rights. It's just that the states have been allowed to usurp the right.

ElZorro
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
What I meant by Nugent addressing the "topic at hand" was the last few posts, including yours, stating that a national CWP isn't necessary because, as he put it, "The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!"

I thought I was fairly well-spoken, but you're starting to make me wonder ElZorro! :D

Blues
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
But in the same way States tacitly recognize those licenses, marriage and driving for example, the move is on to recognize State CCW licenses as well. See www.Packing.org for the widespread and growing reciprocity between the States. A Florida licensee enjoys recognition in as many as 40 (I believe) other States. Until we get honest-to-God American leadership which recognizes the inviolate sanctity of 2A, that's better than nothing. As for the "What the State giveth, the State can taketh away" idea, that's true enough...but what're you going to do? Either you submit, or you choose not to participate and carry nothing, or you tell 'em all to go to Hell and just strap it on and let the chips fall where they may! Some do that. Are you ready for the potential consequences?
 

spc

Member
Packing dot org is dead,,,RIP

On the other hand Having the states individually responsible for CCW is proper. Having an organization as indicated by elzorro that would coordinate some of the rules and regulations from state to state would be great.

To have states have more parallel guidlines for their regulations would be a godsend for those that travel and have multipal permits.

ElZorro


Default SwiftEagle, you've got it partly right, HOWEVER
Marriage and driving licenses are not universally recognized by any Federal mandate. It's all reciprocity between the STATE Governments.

Witness the spate of state law amendments after some states recognized "same-sex" marriages; many states specifically redacted their full recognization of those states' marriage licenses, eliminating the same-sex.

Also; driving license reciprocity is managed by a private organization that coordinates with the various states' DOTs to keep us all driving nonchalantly across state lines.

A similar organization and cooperation by the states could easily handle this idiotic "national CCW" idea.

BTW, Nugent nowhere addresses this idea of national licensing but, rather, espouses the clear fact that 2A doesn't exclude compliance by the states, so we defacto already have universal carry rights. It's just that the states have been allowed to usurp the right.

ElZorro
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
 

The Shadow

New member
Rights? What Rights!

We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

Examples: Marriage, as mentioned above some states tried to legislate Marriages but the Fed Courts for the most part shot them down.

Congress is now working on a National Marriage Act that will make all State Laws Ineffective and mandate same sex marriage and woe to the Preacher that speaks outs against it.

Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.

Various Southern States tried to pass laws directly outlawing Pornography, attempted to try various Porn Stars because there movies were being sold in their state, but the Feds stepped in and made all of them null and void.

So local state rights were usurped once again. Local communities had no control over what could be shown, or sold.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

Examples: Marriage, as mentioned above some states tried to legislate Marriages but the Fed Courts for the most part shot them down.

Congress is now working on a National Marriage Act that will make all State Laws Ineffective and mandate same sex marriage and woe to the Preacher that speaks outs against it.

Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.

Various Southern States tried to pass laws directly outlawing Pornography, attempted to try various Porn Stars because there movies were being sold in their state, but the Feds stepped in and made all of them null and void.

So local state rights were usurped once again. Local communities had no control over what could be shown, or sold.

All of these points are perfectly valid examples of the fed ignoring the 10th Amendment guarantee of states' rights. State-to-state, local control of CCW laws however, is not a valid example because the 10th only applies to issues not specifically provided for in the rest of The Bill of Rights. The words, "the right to keep and bear arms" certainly implies physical possession (keep) being covered from the fed level, as well as the right of lawful use of deadly force (bear). The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

States' rights is a fine issue to discuss and/or strongly support, but the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms does not fall within any valid claim of states' rights being violated. It's quite the other way around in fact. The Constitution is being violated in favor of states' rights in the case of varied and confused state and local laws on gun ownership and gun carrying.

I am 100% in favor of returning to the states all of the authority the Framers intended them to have. Get rid of the federal education bureaucracy, it is an infringement of states' rights, no question. Overturn Roe v. Wade and all the other activist decisions that establish federally-protected rights which cannot be found articulated anywhere in The Constitution. Let the states decide on every single one of those issues, no arguments from me. But recognize and uphold the power that only the fed is authorized to exert, the text contained in The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Just as it says in Matthew, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

Blues
 

doublenutz

New member
Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th ammendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.

I'd agree with you in 99% of the cases on Federalization. However the 2nd Amendment did not give States the authority to infringe upon the rights of citizens. Look at it like this: Is it fine for the Federal Government to regulate things like Drugs which there is nothing in our constitution that stipulates states may overturn Federal legislation on say something like... medical marijuana. The DEA can still prosecute your ass for growing and dispensing a narcotic for sale- even though the state says it's ok. Yet your constitutional right to keep and bear ams is regularly infringed upon by the states and the BATF does not intervene to protect your right to carry your firearms accross state lines the way they allow you to carry a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer between states.
 

doublenutz

New member
. The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

"Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

Blues


FLAWLESS!!! This a masterpeice of thought to paper (rather keyboard)!
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

"Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

FLAWLESS!!! This a masterpeice of thought to paper (rather keyboard)!

Wow doublenutz, you're going to make me blush! :eek: Thanks for the kudos though, and thanks for *getting it*.

Blues
 

kmfisher1

New member
Torch,

You don't live in IL!!!!!! :mad:

I had a chance to transfer to Il. many years ago, didn't do it just because of this and many other things that are just plain wrong with it and Wi. Those 2 states take the prize on being anti-gun.
So sad.
 

ishi

New member
We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

...

Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.

This is a bad example. Banning pornography is a blatant 1st amendment violation. Guys, I don't give up ANY of my rights, not the 2nd, not the 1st, not the 4th and not the 6th. NONE.

In the same way, state legislation to ban ownership or carry of firearms is a State restriction on a constitutionally protected right. The States have no authority to do this.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,354
Messages
622,666
Members
74,170
Latest member
Strategicfirearmtraining
Top