National Right To Carry

[Spotteddog]

I'm revisiting this thread only for the purpose of reminding folks that Chicago and the state of Illinois has never allowed CCW. Which is why to this day absolutely no one in Chicago packs heat. Nor will anyone, anywhere legally anyway if things break badly. Nationwide CCW is a pipe dream with the herd currently plundering the treasury and writing legislation with their greasy fingers. The 2010' mid-terms are VERY important...

 

[Wayne02]

Originally posted by wjh2657:
I find it interesting that many forum members who have such a fervent desire to protect the Second Amendment have so little respect for the Tenth Amendment. You back them all or you will have none! They go together and you cannot require enforcement for one and throw aside another.

National gun licensing,registration or any other gun control is against the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, yes it is. A bad bill indeed. I've let my reps know several times in the last several months that this idea needs to be defeated.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Confused by the back-n-forth on this forum, I decided to check out what the NRA has to say. Seem a similar bill has also been introduced in the Senate and the NRA is in support of both the House and Senate efforts for a national recognition of reciprocity. Pasted from www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fed....aspx?id=4402&issue=

Update On National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bills

Friday, February 06, 2009

This week, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced S. 371, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 197 -- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009." H.R. 197 was introduced last month by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees.

The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 371 and H.R. 197! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

 

[norad45]

I find it a bit hypocritical to argue on the one hand that the Federal government has no business infringing on the RKBA, while at the same time claiming that self defense is a state's rights issue. I will no more accept any infringement of my right to self defense by a state government than I will by the Feds.

As far as the bill goes, I support it. We didn't lose our right to self defense in this country overnight. We lost it bit by bit, over the years. We are going to have to start reclaiming it the same way: incrementally. Perhaps the folks who think that this bill is somehow going to make things worse just don't understand how precariously bad things really are right now. The fact is, if Obama and the Democrats want to, they can, through regulation, criminalize gun ownership at the federal level and there isn't a damn thing that the states can (or will) do about it. And I'm willing to bet that that is exactly what the Dems are going to start doing in 2 short years, beginning with a new self-loading weapons ban. The way to stop them is to vigorously counter-attack and keep it up--even if the bill fails the first time out.

 

[wjh2657]

The problem is as a right the RKBA exists only if written into law. The Second Amendment is only binding on the Congress of the United States. To pick up the right it has to be written into your state constitution. I live in Tennessee and Tennessee has such a provision in its state constitution. Although there is a move to fully incorporate the spirit of the 2ndA into state laws, there is only a District court ruling on this and pertains only to the Ninth district. This ruling has not passed the baptism of fire of a USSC decision yet. The Heller decision did not shoot down the power of the DC courts to prohibit handguns per se, but shot down the argument used of the RKBA being collective and belonging to the militia (State.)We are a long ways away yet from being safe in the assumption we can have and carry handguns.

 

[norad45]

Originally posted by wjh2657:
The Second Amendment is only binding on the Congress of the United States. To pick up the right it has to be written into your state constitution.

If that is the case, then the same logic would apply to the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, which it clearly doesn't. After all, the states cannot beat confessions out of suspects, conduct warrantless searches, or shut down newspapers any more than the Federal government can, despite what their state constitutions say. For example, I could care less if the Constitution of Illinois grants an individual RKBA or not. Citizens in Chicago have exactly the same rights under the 2nd Amendment as anyone else. The fact that it is their state that oppresses them rather than the Feds does not somehow make it all right.

 

[wjh2657]

Logic does clearly does apply as the 1st,4th, and 5th Amendments have been enacted into state laws by due process incorporation which has been decided by USSC cases. We are waiting to see if the 2nd stands the "crucible test" and then our 2nd Amendments rights will be part of state laws. At present the 2ndA still only applies to actions by Congress. There is a very strong misunderstanding in this country as to where the U.S.Constitution applies to states. Most of the Constitution (including the 2nd Amendment) still only applies to actions by Congress. The Bill of Rights is not nearly as Iron-clad as most of us would like to believe, as it only limits Federal action in most cases. norad45, as a Libertarian I am a strict constitutionalist, but the more I delve into the Constitution, the more I find that most of the law that applies to my life does not have to pass the test of Constitutionality. If this 9th District ruling does not hold up in the USSC review,we will have to launch a two prong political effort . First, we will have to generate more test cases through other districts. The 2nd Amendment will be effective at our own level only if it is incorporated into our state laws. Second, we will have to pressure state legislatures to enact laws incorporating our RKBA. In most states, constitutional reform of state constitution would be an uphill battle and not productive except over a long range effort.

In Tennessee there is no problem. The state constitution has a RKBA proviso and my rights are guaranteed under the state constitution. Many other states (I don't know off-hand which ones) have already done this also.

Washington D.C. (Heller) was an unusual case as it is subject to Federal law at city level also.

If the case had been in any of the sovereign states, I very much doubt that the USSC would have even heard the case.