National Right To Carry

[johngalt]

Originally posted by flop-shank:

Originally posted by johngalt:
The 'National Right To Carry' law does not recognize our right to carry. As it is now, we don't have a right to carry concealed weapons, we have a privilege (except in Vermont and Alaska). If it was a right, there would be no licensing at all.

No, there is a right to carry. The aces who make laws may try to convince us that they decide what our rights are, but they can't. Laws come from men. Rights come from God. Every lawabiding man in the world has the same rights as people in Alaska and Vermont whether their government recognizes it or not.

You are correct of course.

We have always had the right to carry, openly or concealed. Requiring licensing is a violation of the right, and in IL and WI, the right is denied completely.

What I meant was the proposed 'National Right To Carry' is badly named - it does not give us any rights. You stated it better than I did.

It bothers me that so many people considers this a good thing - it attempts to legitimize the notion that a basic human right can be licensed and turned into a privilege.

 

[Bobwtn]

I have a permit in TN and my stance on the states that deny my right to own and/or carry is simple. I do not go there, ever desire to live there and may our Creator deal with them.

Frankly, if there is a store here that posts a "No Weapons" sign, I let them know, I resent it, I am a good citizen, and I will not do business with them and will suggest to my friends that they not do business there.
We should always stand up for our rights, but do it in a respectful manner.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by Titan:
Unfortunately bills like this that try to place mandates on states can cause some Republicans who would normally support gun rights to 'peel off' because of the 'State's Rights' issues..

As it should be. I do not want the Feds interfering with Ohio's sovereign power over gun ownership just because the people in other states live under a socialist dictatorship.

Sorry. You gotta find a different way to fix Mass' problems.

I wasn't trying to solve MA problems.

I was commenting on the relative likelihood that a bill like this would pass.

FYI, there is already 'full faith and credit' from state to state governing state to state recognition of all sorts of licenses and legal documents (i.e. marriage licenses, contracts, etc.) Why not a similar treatment on any state's 'License to Carry'.

Of course the problem, and the difference with LTC's (per the standard argument) is that the standards vary widely from state to state - another major obstacle to such legislation.

While I'd love to see it, I highly doubt it will ever pass.
.
.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by Lucky Derby:
Why do you think it is a State's rights issue?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

It is a state's rights issue because the 10th Amendment says so.

No article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to regulate the ownership, possession, and transport (including concealed carry) of firearms outside of interstate commerce.

Putting aside the issue of incorporation, which is a legal precept borne out of interpretation of the Constitution, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended that the RKBA should not be infringed by the Federal Government, if they fully accepted and expected states to be able to do that very thing.

I've been through all the debates, it just will never make sense to me that the difference between 'shall not be infringed' and 'reasonable regulations' swings on the issue of 'incorporation'.

I believe my natural right to defend myself (with 'arms'), is every bit as valid in one state as in another.

I'm sorry liberals disagree and appear to be winning the PR battle.
.

 

[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.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by Titan:
Putting aside the issue of incorporation, which is a legal precept borne out of interpretation of the Constitution, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended that the RKBA should not be infringed by the Federal Government, if they fully accepted and expected states to be able to do that very thing.

You misunderstood me.

I am not arguing that the 2nd does not apply to the states until it is "incorporated". I disagree with incorporation. It is a judicial invention that I do not recognize.

What I am arguing is that the 10th PROHIBITS the Fed from regulating anything related to firearms except maybe the interstate sale of them. The interstate sale of firearms falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution, and as such it is an enumarated power that we have given the Fed. It should stop there, but many people (mostly libtards) like to read the Constitution and its Amendments in a selective fashion.

 

[Andy Taylor]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by Lucky Derby:
Why do you think it is a State's rights issue?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

It is a state's rights issue because the 10th Amendment says so.

No article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to regulate the ownership, possession, and transport (including concealed carry) of firearms outside of interstate commerce.

The tenth does not give the states that right.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." emphasis added.

 

[Deltaboy]

No way this a bad Deal for Texans.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Lucky Derby, the 10th does not enumarate any rights for anybody.

It limits the POWER of the Federal Government. Plain and simple.

National CCW is a violation of the 10th unless you can show me which Article or Amendment gives the Federal government the power to regulate the carrying of firearms.

A National CCW Ban (the opposite) is likewise prohibited by the 10th.

It cuts both ways. You cannot use the Constitution to claim Federal interference when it suits you and in the same breath claim for Federal relief of something that irks you even though the Constitution does not give that power of relief to the Fed.

This is elemental stuff.

 

[Andy Taylor]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:
Lucky Derby, the 10th does not enumarate any rights for anybody.

It limits the POWER of the Federal Government. Plain and simple.

National CCW is a violation of the 10th unless you can show me which Article or Amendment gives the Federal government the power to regulate the carrying of firearms.

A National CCW Ban (the opposite) is likewise prohibited by the 10th.

It cuts both ways. You cannot use the Constitution to claim Federal interference when it suits you and in the same breath claim for Federal relief of something that irks you even though the Constitution does not give that power of relief to the Fed.

This is elemental stuff.

I never said that National CCW is a good idea or that it is constitutional. What I am saying is that all things involving guns (CCW or other) are rights of the people. It is not a states rights issue that so many people like to say it is. It is an individual right that can not be taken away by the Fed or State or local government.

 

[user]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by Lucky Derby:
Why do you think it is a State's rights issue?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

It is a state's rights issue because the 10th Amendment says so.

No article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to regulate the ownership, possession, and transport (including concealed carry) of firearms outside of interstate commerce.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you - the states have pre-emptive powers with respect to the ownership, possession and use of firearms both under the power to ensure the public welfare as well as the police power. But there are two reasons the U.S. would have jurisdiction in this case, based on what I've read so far: first, is the obligation of each state to give full faith and credit to the ministerial acts of every other state, pursuant to such laws as Congress may choose to implement; and secondly, people moving from state to state is pretty much the basis of interstate commerce, and thus, interstate recognition of licenses would be subject to such regulation as Congress may choose to enact.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by user:

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by Lucky Derby:
Why do you think it is a State's rights issue?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

It is a state's rights issue because the 10th Amendment says so.

No article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to regulate the ownership, possession, and transport (including concealed carry) of firearms outside of interstate commerce.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you - the states have pre-emptive powers with respect to the ownership, possession and use of firearms both under the power to ensure the public welfare as well as the police power. But there are two reasons the U.S. would have jurisdiction in this case, based on what I've read so far: first, is the obligation of each state to give full faith and credit to the ministerial acts of every other state, pursuant to such laws as Congress may choose to implement; and secondly, people moving from state to state is pretty much the basis of interstate commerce, and thus, interstate recognition of licenses would be subject to such regulation as Congress may choose to enact.

I can buy the Full Faith and Credit argument, but cannot buy the interstate commerce angle.

The basis of interstate commerce is the transport of goods and rendering of services for profit across state lines. Personal mobility in no way, shape, or form constitutes interstate commerce unless one stretches the definition of those words beyond anything recognizable.

Accepting such definition of interstate commerce is to give the Federal Government unfettered power to control virtually every aspect of our lives. No thank you.

The National 55 mph Speed Limit was enacted under the guise of interstate commerce regulation. If that were so, it would have only applied to motor carriers regulated by the FHwA. My personal travels in my automobile do not come even close to meeting the definition of interstate commerce, even when I am purchasing goods and services while on the road. I do not travel for the purpose of buying fuel in another state. I purchase fuel in another state so that I can continue my travels for personal, not commercial purposes.

It is this kind of twisted reading of the Constitution, so far outisde the normally accepted meaning of plain English words like commerce and infringed, that has been largely responsible for the death of Federalism.

 

[940lvr]

As it stands now if you own a firearm, or anything else for that matter, that was manufactured outside of your state, you have engaged in interstate commerce. I am not saying that I agree with that stance. I am just telling you what the courts have said.

 

[br25004x4]

Originally posted by 940lvr:
As it stands now if you own a firearm, or anything else for that matter, that was manufactured outside of your state, you have engaged in interstate commerce. I am not saying that I agree with that stance. I am just telling you what the courts have said.

I have not engaged in interstate commerce. Possibly the gun shop that ordered it from out of state and stocked it has. Just because we buy or own something made in another state does not cause us to be engaged in interstate commerce.

 

[Dusty Miller]

Originally posted by SuperTroll:
Realistically, it would take a miracle to get national action on this.

It'll pass when my farts start to smell like roses!

 

[PeterBergh]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:
Accepting such definition of interstate commerce is to give the Federal Government unfettered power to control virtually every aspect of our lives. No thank you.

While I completely agree with Wyatt, I must point out that our less-than-ideal Congress has, several times, twisted the interstate-commerce clause beyond recognition. The double nickel is but one example. Increasing the drinking age is another. There are many more.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by PeterBergh:
I must point out that our less-than-ideal Congress has, several times, twisted the interstate-commerce clause beyond recognition. The double nickel is but one example. Increasing the drinking age is another. There are many more.

And our spineless, corrupt, self-serving, unaccountable courts have let them get away with it.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Man, I am totally confused. Is HR 197 deserving of my support or not? Will it pass constitutional muster if made law?

I have to go to Maryland next week (no choice - I'd avoid that place completely if possible) and cannot carry or transport. My firearm will be at home.

I really do wish there was some legal vehicle that would/could mandate that anti-gun jursidiction must honor CCW's issued by a holder's home state just as they must with DL's. That jursdiction may decide not to issue to their own residents but they should honor those visitors and passers-by that do have permits from their home state.

 

[gboling]

Originally posted by pps:

Originally posted by Spotteddog:
I'll do it, but anything not coming from a registered lobbyist is immediately deleted by Sen's Patty Murray and Maria Cant(vote)well? Our twice elected house guy (Rick Larsen) is only slightly better, in that he sometimes responds to his mail.
Now, guess what they all have in common, 10 seconds?

I live here in Commifornia, so I'll pass on answering the obvious.

So do I, but you never get a hit if you don't step to the plate!

 

[Birddog2]

As I recall both the 21 year drinking age and the 55 mph were not so much ICC matters as much as bribery and intimidation- go along and have your states laws conform to this standard or lose yout federal highway funds.