Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2017, 06:16 PM
ISCS Yoda's Avatar
ISCS Yoda ISCS Yoda is offline
US Veteran
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,386
Likes: 2,475
Liked 13,046 Times in 4,532 Posts
Default The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity

I admit that I hang around on line with some very pointy headed, as in brilliant, conservative attorneys who all share an interest in the RKBA. One of them posted this website today:

Trump Supports Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved

As far as I can tell, the comments submitted below this article are all irrelevant or legal malarkey. The author's point, which I tend to agree with, is that the Commerce Clause has been used and abused to solve every kind of issue in America for half a century. Because it has been so widely bent out of shape by the Supreme Court and a host of lower courts it could actually be the perfect vehicle to create a legal basis for a national reciprocity law for concealed handgun permits.

Simply put, there are two ways to look at it:

1. Guns are shipped across state lines, whether manufactured in America or imported, that puts them into interstate commerce - ipso facto, any state license with respect to firearms affects interstate commerce so national reciprocity is enforceable under the Commerce Clause.

If you think that's wacky you should really read the cases that exist for wacky applications of the Commerce Clause.

2. Concealed carry holders cross state lines with these permits in their possession; therefore, forbidding their use from state to state has a negative impact on interstate commerce because these people will have their ability to travel from state to state restricted by virtue of their fear of being illegal with a permit and an associated weapon in their possession in a contiguous state (never mind flying; that's another issue).

If you think that's wacky you should really read the cases that exist for wacky applications of the Commerce Clause.

This is going to get very interesting!!!

Last edited by ISCS Yoda; 02-15-2017 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 02-18-2017, 05:30 PM
loonybin loonybin is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: KS
Posts: 40
Likes: 3
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Just a small flaw in that logic: other wacky applications of the Commerce Clause (read: unconstitutional) do not justify another wacky application of the Commerce Clause. If anything, perhaps the other wacky applications should be reversed...

The most solid analogy is that CCW reciprocity should be enforced the same as driver licenses.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-18-2017, 05:42 PM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

I don't know how I feel about this. Ultimately I want to be able to possess a firearm in every state the same as I do my own, BUT, I'm also a big fan of states rights.
The commerce clause would be good because it would make it impossible for any individual state to just change their mind about reciprocity. States have already shown that they will do that at the drop of a hat, look at the changes that take place year to year. The "commerce clause" would be a lot harder to change willy-nilly because a change would have to effect all states.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 02-18-2017, 06:35 PM
texmex texmex is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 667
Likes: 268
Liked 1,135 Times in 368 Posts
Default

How about this part of the U. S. Constitution?

Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State

If you can drive in New York with a Texas driver's license, seems like you should be able to carry in New York with a Texas CHL.

Probably just wishful thinking on my part.

If at first you don't secede, try, try again!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-18-2017, 06:42 PM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texmex View Post
How about this part of the U. S. Constitution?

Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State

If you can drive in New York with a Texas driver's license, seems like you should be able to carry in New York with a Texas CHL.

Probably just wishful thinking on my part.

If at first you don't secede, try, try again!
The "full faith and credit section applies more for legal proceedings such as extradition I believe.
Each state does have a specific reciprocity statute that covers driving privilege. Without those specific statutes it would be illegal to drive in another state.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2017, 06:51 PM
dougb1946 dougb1946 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern MN
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 159
Liked 1,949 Times in 725 Posts
Default

You can buy a car and operate it on your own property with no license or training or insurance. To take the car into the public world, you are required to take a test to prove you know the laws, and a test to prove you can drive it down the street without killing someone in order to get the license. And then to use it , you are required to have insurance.

Last edited by dougb1946; 02-18-2017 at 06:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2017, 07:08 PM
OKFC05 OKFC05 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 8,158
Likes: 3,605
Liked 5,199 Times in 2,172 Posts
Default

This has been beat to death. Using driving is a horrible example, for several reasons, including that NOTHING about it relies on US Federal laws. The states worked it out among themselves. While the Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond all reason, I don't know if our own conservative Justices would support its use in this case--and it WOULD be challenged. NY, NJ, CA NI, OR WA come to mind as states that would fight to their last taxpayer dollar to challenge the Federal takeover of their power to regulate firearms. Heck, they don't even follow US drug and immigration laws now.
NYC, NJ are two places that don't follow the 1986 FOPA, what makes you think they would allow YOU to carry there?
__________________
Science plus Art

Last edited by OKFC05; 02-18-2017 at 07:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 02-18-2017, 07:11 PM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

The simplest thing would be for everyone to follow the 2A but even on gun forums we can't agree on how to follow that.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #9  
Old 02-18-2017, 07:23 PM
Alk8944's Avatar
Alk8944 Alk8944 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 8,616
Likes: 1,554
Liked 8,608 Times in 3,452 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hostler View Post
The "full faith and credit section applies more for legal proceedings such as extradition I believe.
Each state does have a specific reciprocity statute that covers driving privilege. Without those specific statutes it would be illegal to drive in another state.
hostler,

You are absolutely incorrect in your interpretation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution. The ".. public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.." are three separate items, exactly as they read, not all related to judicial proceedings. Among (many) other things protected by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause are marriages and divorces (Records and Judicial Proceedings!). This is why when you are married in one state you are legally married in all, and if you are divorced it applies to all states and not just where the proceedings occurred. Driver License reciprocity is specifically protected by this clause, not individual reciprocity agreements. Why? Because free movement between states does directly affect Interstate Commerce, not only on an individual basis but it allows CDL Licensees to operate commercial vehicles hauling goods to cross state lines.

Extraditions have nothing to do with this clause! If a fugitive is arrested in another state one of two things must occur. Either the fugitive must waive extradition and voluntarily submit, or a Governor's Warrant must be issued in the state from which he is fugitive, and the warrant must be recognized and accepted by the governor of the state in which the fugitive is held in custody. You are thinking of extradition treaties between the United States and other countries!

And let me define the phrase "I believe" for you just in case you do not understand. In short it means "I believe, but I really don't know." It means you are expressing an un-substantiated opinion.
__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Last edited by Alk8944; 02-18-2017 at 07:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-18-2017, 07:47 PM
Faulkner's Avatar
Faulkner Faulkner is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Posts: 6,264
Likes: 7,266
Liked 33,982 Times in 3,679 Posts
Default

The conflict to defend states rights was, unfortunately, lost in 1865.
__________________
- Change it back -
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 02-18-2017, 08:06 PM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alk8944 View Post
hostler,

You are absolutely incorrect in your interpretation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution. The ".. public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.." are three separate items, exactly as they read, not all related to judicial proceedings. Among (many) other things protected by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause are marriages and divorces (Records and Judicial Proceedings!). This is why when you are married in one state you are legally married in all, and if you are divorced it applies to all states and not just where the proceedings occurred. Driver License reciprocity is specifically protected by this clause, not individual reciprocity agreements. Why? Because free movement between states does directly affect Interstate Commerce, not only on an individual basis but it allows CDL Licensees to operate commercial vehicles hauling goods to cross state lines.

Extraditions have nothing to do with this clause! If a fugitive is arrested in another state one of two things must occur. Either the fugitive must waive extradition and voluntarily submit, or a Governor's Warrant must be issued in the state from which he is fugitive, and the warrant must be recognized and accepted by the governor of the state in which the fugitive is held in custody. You are thinking of extradition treaties between the United States and other countries!

And let me define the phrase "I believe" for you just in case you do not understand. In short it means "I believe, but I really don't know." It means you are expressing an un-substantiated opinion.
OK, sorry...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-18-2017, 08:12 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,555 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

Some folks seem to have a rather extreme view about the issue and see it as a threat to states rights, or see it as a move towards a "federal" permit.

It's neither.

In essence what the concealed carry bill currently in the House would do is allow each and every state to:

1) decide if it wants concealed carry;
2) decide what requirements must be met for concealed carry;
3) decide what other limits may apply, such as 10 round magazines, no hollow points, etc; and
4) apply all theses things to all of it's residents.

You know, just like states can do now.

What this bill would do is to allow a *resident* concealed carry permit holder in one state (who meets all of that state's permit requirements and firearm/bullet type restrictions) to conceal carry his or her handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry for it's own residents.

It effectively does two things:

1) It eliminates the arbitrary application of reciprocity between states; and

2) Allows a concealed carry holder to carry a handgun that is legal to carry in his or her state in any state that allows concealed carry (by defining "handgun" of the purpose of this law as including any magazine size and any bullet type).

I'm not seeing a down side here...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-18-2017, 08:22 PM
southcoast southcoast is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 217
Likes: 669
Liked 166 Times in 85 Posts
Default

I would expect most lawyers to know, and this may surprise most modern day gun rights activists, but it was a gun case that put a sudden halt on the rapidly expanding reach of the Commerce Clause. See

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

It's worth a read, and after reading you will see why expecting a gun case to now expand the reach of the Commerce Clause is as likely as finding a unicorn riding leprechaun who delivers you a pot of gold.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:22 PM
Fastbolt's Avatar
Fastbolt Fastbolt is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 914
Liked 6,591 Times in 2,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonybin View Post
...

The most solid analogy is that CCW reciprocity should be enforced the same as driver licenses.
Which is a states issue, addressed & resolved by the states (eventually, and with some different attempts), and not the business of the feds.
__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-19-2017, 12:31 AM
adwjc adwjc is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Adirondack foothills
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 10,961
Liked 1,045 Times in 474 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southcoast View Post
I would expect most lawyers to know, and this may surprise most modern day gun rights activists, but it was a gun case that put a sudden halt on the rapidly expanding reach of the Commerce Clause. See

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

It's worth a read, and after reading you will see why expecting a gun case to now expand the reach of the Commerce Clause is as likely as finding a unicorn riding leprechaun who delivers you a pot of gold.
Southcoast,

looking at a portion of the decision in Wikipedia,

"The government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways.

First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy;

and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe.

The government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[8]

Supreme Court decision[edit]

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[9]

Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

The channels of interstate commerce

The instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce[10]

Activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce[11]

The Court summarily dismissed any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that the resolution of the case depended only on consideration of the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions.[12]

The opinion rejected the government's argument that because crime negatively impacted education, Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce.

The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

“ To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do. ”

The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:

1.Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity

2.Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce

3.Whether there had been congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education

4.How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce

Although the ruling stopped a decades-long trend of inclusiveness under the commerce clause, it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court had the duty to prevent the legislative branch from usurping state powers over policing the conduct of their citizens. He admitted that the Supreme Court had upheld certain governmental steps towards taking power away from the states, and cited Lopez as a decision that finally stepped in to check the government's authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers.[13]"

This decision today would be considered an activist ruling or legislating from the bench - so how has the pendulum swung since 1995?
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #16  
Old 02-19-2017, 01:17 AM
southcoast southcoast is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NOVA
Posts: 217
Likes: 669
Liked 166 Times in 85 Posts
Default

On the contrary, if one were to look at cases cited as "activist" given the magnitude and impact of this case at the time it is not listed as one by the legal scholars then and now.

Even assuming for the sake of argument one were to characterize this as an "activist decision" the current Supreme Court 4-4 split on fed v/s state's rights would maintain the status quo. When the current nominee is sworn in the numbers would again favor a 5-4 split leaning towards the same State's rights logic outlined in Lopez, which would keep concealed laws regulated by the individual states rather than the Fed govt.
Especially when the case speaks directly to the carrying of handguns, "It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale."

Last edited by southcoast; 02-19-2017 at 01:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-19-2017, 01:41 AM
deadin's Avatar
deadin deadin is offline
US Veteran
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ocean Shores, WA, USA
Posts: 5,775
Likes: 201
Liked 5,063 Times in 1,767 Posts
Default

Quote:
In essence what the concealed carry bill currently in the House would do is allow each and every state to:

1) decide if it wants concealed carry;
2) decide what requirements must be met for concealed carry;
3) decide what other limits may apply, such as 10 round magazines, no hollow points, etc; and
4) apply all theses things to all of it's residents.
Were I a State and the Feds tried to cram this down my throat and I really really didn't want non-residents CCing in my State, I might just consider removing CCing for everybody.

Or I would make the requirements (#'s 2 & 3) so onerous and expensive that most people wouldn't be interested.
__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-19-2017, 10:27 AM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,555 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadin View Post
Were I a State and the Feds tried to cram this down my throat and I really really didn't want non-residents CCing in my State, I might just consider removing CCing for everybody.

Or I would make the requirements (#'s 2 & 3) so onerous and expensive that most people wouldn't be interested.
That's not likely to happen in states that already allow widespread concealed carry.

First, allowing non residents to carry in your state just isn't a big deal. Reciprocity is already widespread - just a little too arbitrary. We are not talking large numbers of people with concealed carry permits running around in the state. We are basically talking about a minor extension of the pass through provision that's ben around since the FOPA was passed in 1986.

Second, we are also not talking about non resident permits - like the UT non resident permit - being used to allow the same concealed carry rights as a resident permit. In fact, this law would remove the benefit of getting non resident permits, and would arguably decrease the number of "non resident" permits in use.

Consider for example, that someone moving to NC from MD can get a VA non resident permit quicker, cheaper and easier (no live fire training) than they can get an NC resident permit, and then use it in NC until that permit expires in 5 years. For that matter they can renew the VA non resident permit and NEVER get an NC permit (provided NC never pulls the reciprocity plug).

This non resident permit mis-use should be an issue that alarms these same states you're talking about - but it hasn't become an issue. This law won't create that concern either, but rather goes a long way toward incentivizing residents to get resident permits - an action states will support.

Finally, the political back lash in the state - where it matters to state representatives and senators - would be enormous if a state with wide spread concealed carry decided to end it. So that's not going to happen.

It might be a problem in states like MD, but let's be honest, it's almost impossible to get a permit in MD anyway, so the difference between the current situation and your catastrophized situation is for all practical purposes none.

Last edited by BB57; 02-19-2017 at 10:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-19-2017, 02:13 PM
deadin's Avatar
deadin deadin is offline
US Veteran
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ocean Shores, WA, USA
Posts: 5,775
Likes: 201
Liked 5,063 Times in 1,767 Posts
Default

OK, I have some questions...

Given the following:
Quote:
In essence what the concealed carry bill currently in the House would do is allow each and every state to:

1) decide if it wants concealed carry;
2) decide what requirements must be met for concealed carry;
3) decide what other limits may apply, such as 10 round magazines, no hollow points, etc; and
4) apply all theses things to all of it's residents.
1) If a State opts out of CC, is it just removed from the equation and nobody (including residents) can carry?

2) Will all States have to meet the requirements of the strictest State? (Example: I am in Washington State, we do not have any classes or shooting requirements. Will WA have to require classes and testing? If it doesn't, what then? Do we expect the States that do require classes, etc. to accept our permit? ( I don't think this will fly.) One solution would be to go to a National CC permit with all issuance done by the Feds. (Good luck with that).

3) Will these requirement be universal or will each State have its own and non-residents will have to be aware of them if they decide to carry in a given State. (Isn't this pretty much the way it is now with whatever reciprocity currently exists ?)_

4) Redundant if all States are the same.....
__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-19-2017, 04:33 PM
Flattop5 Flattop5 is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 659
Likes: 99
Liked 1,112 Times in 389 Posts
Default

Nearly every law that came down the pike under the miserable, often-illegal Roosevelt cabal (in this case, the left-wing extremist justice, and Roosevelt appointee, Felix Frankfurter was point man for the Commerce Clause) is unconstitutional and should be overturned. Maybe new justice Neil Gorsuch can help with that. (Many of FDR's actions were illegal, yet he was never impeached).

Wise judges ignore anything The Hotdog said or wrote -- he co-founded the ACLU, for God's sake. What a horrible time for America: the FDR era.




-----------------
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #21  
Old 02-21-2017, 04:38 PM
ISCS Yoda's Avatar
ISCS Yoda ISCS Yoda is offline
US Veteran
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,386
Likes: 2,475
Liked 13,046 Times in 4,532 Posts
Default

Item:

Quote:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State
Public acts, records, and judicial proceedings does not include drivers' licenses. That is why the states have a "compact" that governs that item. Therefore, it doesn't cover gun permits, either.

Item:

Quote:
Just a small flaw in that logic: other wacky applications of the Commerce Clause (read: unconstitutional) do not justify another wacky application of the Commerce Clause. If anything, perhaps the other wacky applications should be reversed...
That is true, actually. My point, however, is that the precedent is already set to do just that, make another wacky ruling under the Commerce Clause. "Unconstitutional" fades when the precedent has been set and reset, even if wrong from the outset.

Quote:
The most solid analogy is that CCW reciprocity should be enforced the same as driver licenses.
Only through another compact between the states. Which ain't happenin'....

Similarly:

Quote:
Driver License reciprocity is specifically protected by this clause, not individual reciprocity agreements. Why? Because free movement between states does directly affect Interstate Commerce, not only on an individual basis but it allows CDL Licensees to operate commercial vehicles hauling goods to cross state lines.
That is incorrect. There is no SCOTUS decision or national legislation governing drivers' licenses. Drivers' licenses are a privilege and are not governed by the Commerce Clause or FF&C clause.

Item:

Quote:
I would expect most lawyers to know, and this may surprise most modern day gun rights activists, but it was a gun case that put a sudden halt on the rapidly expanding reach of the Commerce Clause. See

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

It's worth a read, and after reading you will see why expecting a gun case to now expand the reach of the Commerce Clause is as likely as finding a unicorn riding leprechaun who delivers you a pot of gold.
The Lopez case is not, in my opinion, a general halt on the expansion of the Commerce Clause. It is rather tight, I think, and the underlying principle seems to be that you can't stretch criminal cases into commercial cases. ICBW.....BIDTS.

However, using the Commerce Clause to say that forbidding licensees from traveling across state lines with their handguns has a negative impact on interstate commerce because it prevents these people from freely traveling is not as big a stretch as you might think, wacky as it sounds. I was going to add quotes from a 1964 SCOTUS case to prove my point but it is too unwieldy and starts to go places that are against the Forum rules so I want to stay within the Forum rules. You can look the Willis case up yourselves.

As for what Flatop5 said, I am stunned and delighted to see someone else state out loud the same things that I tell people all the time - well done!

Quote:
Nearly every law that came down the pike under the miserable, often-illegal Roosevelt cabal (in this case, the left-wing extremist justice, and Roosevelt appointee, Felix Frankfurter was point man for the Commerce Clause) is unconstitutional and should be overturned. Maybe new justice Neil Gorsuch can help with that. (Many of FDR's actions were illegal, yet he was never impeached).

Wise judges ignore anything The Hotdog said or wrote -- he co-founded the ACLU, for God's sake. What a horrible time for America: the FDR era.
If it wasn't for the outbreak of WW2 FDR would not be remembered as kindly as history generally notes. But I/we digress.....

The point is, I do think the SCOTUS and the Congress can stretch the Commerce Clause to cover a national right to carry bill. We shall see.

Last edited by ISCS Yoda; 02-21-2017 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 02-21-2017, 05:12 PM
gen3guy gen3guy is offline
Member
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 604
Likes: 21
Liked 660 Times in 284 Posts
Default

I come down on the side of state's rights. I also reject the idea that state's rights was decided 152 years ago. That's absurd. The limits and scope of state's rights is being tested right now in another arena. Marijuana legalization. The federal government is letting the states pretty much have their way on that, in spite of the fact that pot is still a class 1 narcotic at the federal level.

I, for one, would rather forget about being able to carry in California than have to live with some reciprocity compromise that inhibits my rights to carry in my home state of Arizona. When it came down to negotiating, I think California would have their way. Fear has been expressed in other threads that we would wind up having to live with the most restrictive carry laws in order to placate all states. On top of that, I only see the federal government making a bigger mess of things if they decide to come up with uniform reciprocity. I'd prefer them to just stay out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-21-2017, 06:16 PM
Lee's Landing Billy Lee's Landing Billy is offline
Banned
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Battery Oaks Range, S.C.
Posts: 1,847
Likes: 5,663
Liked 3,574 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Wow! Some really good opinions. It always gets to me when the right to carry is compared to the driver's license. One is absolutely given to me in the Constitution. No tests, no barriers, no questions to be answered. The other a privilege granted me by the state I live in. With lots of questions, tests, and qualifications. I have had a CWP for 41 years in S.C., my number is 1XXX. They are now issuing numbers in the 300,000+ range. I am glad I have had it all these years BUT it still aggravates me that I need one.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-21-2017, 06:53 PM
ISCS Yoda's Avatar
ISCS Yoda ISCS Yoda is offline
US Veteran
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity The Commerce Clause of the Constitution and Concealed Carry Reciprocity  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,386
Likes: 2,475
Liked 13,046 Times in 4,532 Posts
Default

I wouldn't get too aggravated about needing a carry permit. I keep reminding folks that if the other guaranteed rights have reasonable restrictions there is no reason the right to keep and bear arms can't have them. There is no difference between "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed". Congress has made laws and the RKBA has been infringed and SCOTUS has held in both cases that it is okay. Not to worry; it is getting better and some infringements are being removed, slowly but surely.

And states rights are coming back, too!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would the 2017 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Help "May Issue" Residents? bushmaster1313 2nd Amendment Forum 7 02-14-2017 01:03 PM
Texas A&M-Commerce & Campus Carry JayAychOh Concealed Carry & Self Defense 2 10-16-2015 08:06 PM
Utah Soon To Be Constitution Carry State RussC The Lounge 26 03-18-2013 04:13 PM
State Reciprocity Of Concealed Carry PA Reb Concealed Carry & Self Defense 18 07-24-2011 11:17 PM
Concealed Carry Reciprocity for all? PALADIN85020 Concealed Carry & Self Defense 17 07-20-2009 09:05 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)