Contact your representative now for ccw

[C0untZer0]

As was stated during debate, it may motivate some states (like California), to emulate Illinois if they want any control over who is allowed to carry in their state.

It really sucks to hear the state that I live in mentioned so so so so many times as "the only state which does not allow concealed carry permits."

[American Made]

My American rights should trump CT rights. If a state acts unfairly, then it is the duty of the federal government to step in and rectify that.
---------------------------------------------------------

When this Country was founded, the States and the "people" were the same. The people made up the States and the States formed the United States.

James Madison addressed where the power resides.[Federalist 45]:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

I am reminded of how the term "state" was used in discussions about the Constitution and our government. Madison said the following in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions:



The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution," or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection.

It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies [states], in their highest sovereign capacity.

Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.

The states and the people of the individual states, never surrendered their sovereignty. They delegated aspects of it to their agent, the central government. That is what the Tenth Amendment is about as well.

[GI Sandv]

So far, it seems that there have been a few friendly arguments between various members on this forum. In an effort to clarify, I'm listing what seems to me to be the salient points everyone is talking about in the hopes that we can at least get some answers to a few key issues.

--Does the full faith and credit clause apply in this situation?

--Are drivers licenses recognized by other states through their own volition, or did Congress mandate that the states must do so?

--Will passage of this bill actually hurt anyone, cause states such as CA and NY to regress in gun-owners rights legislation?

--What is the proper role of Congress? What is the proper role of SCOTUS? Are these different, and where do the lines fall?

I have to run but hope to explore some of these issues a little bit in order to provide some clarity on a few points that haven't been fully addressed. I still don't have the answer to some of these, especially issues relating to drivers licenses. Does anyone else know?

[Hardcase]

--Does the full faith and credit clause apply in this situation?

No. Or I should say, not anymore, if ever.

--Are drivers licenses recognized by other states through their own volition, or did Congress mandate that the states must do so?

It is through their own volition, for the most part, via the Drivers License Compact, which is financed by the Federal government. Not all states are members - reciprocity is not universal.

--Will passage of this bill actually hurt anyone, cause states such as CA and NY to regress in gun-owners rights legislation?

Maybe. One could make a case both ways.

--What is the proper role of Congress? What is the proper role of SCOTUS? Are these different, and where do the lines fall?

Congress legislates, the Judiciary evaluates the Constitutionality of that legislation (which is a gross oversimplification.)

The driver's license thing is interesting because the assumption is that your driver's license is good around the country. That's not necessarily so, from what I've read. If a state is not a member of the DLC, they are not obliged to recognize your driver's license. What does that mean? In the case of Nevada, for instance, not much. Although not a signatory, they'll accept your license. In another state (whose name escapes me at the moment), they may seize your license unless you post a bond. I suppose that it's at the officer's discretion.

Anyway, all of the debating about driver's licenses in the House was interesting because what universality there is is a result of the states working together to achieve it. And it's not perfect.

[BGutzman]

The last thing I want is the federal government messing with my gun rights any more..... Yes I would love to be able to CCW in all 48 states and the two havens of "all guns are evil". The problem is we already have plenty of federal gun laws like the freedom restricting and denying NFA which is really a tax plus rights denial tool.

I dont need any more of these laws, we have too many laws and theres hardly a thing you can do on a daily basis that isnt regulated in one way or another and yet most people dont realize it.... You cant hardly get out of your bed and tie your shoes without violating a federal law... Im not making it up its all too true.

so to stay on point I simply dont want or need these jokers in my gun rights any more than they have already deprived me of my freedoms...

We are a nation of laws.... not of freedoms...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by American Made

And what then? Subject ourselves to many other laws that are unfamiliar? I mean, many State/federal laws are not based on the right of the gun owner - civil tort claims, duty to retreat laws, brandishing a weapon charges, etc, etc..

Are we going to make all laws National?

????

How does this proposed law in any way lead to or even suggest what you are talking about? How would this law subject us to any other laws with which we are unfamiliar? (Other than the laws of any state in which we might travel and carry -- but we would be subject to those laws if we were allowed to carry there under a reciprocity agreement rather than under a Federal mandate, and we would be subject to them if we visit that state even without a firearm.) ALL this law would do is say that if you have a carry license permit from State 'A,' you can carry under that license in all the other states (except Illinois). While in each of those states you would still be subject to that state's laws relating to firearms and self-defense, just as when driving in another state on your home state driver's license you are subject to the traffic and motor vehicle laws of the state you are in.

Whether or not you realize it, you subject yourself to a whole lot of laws with which you are not familiar any time you visit another state. Heck, you probably subject yourself to a lot of laws you don't know about on a daily basis, right in your home state. I only just recently learned that my home TOWN has an ordnance that doesn't exactly prohibit concealed carry on ALL town-owned property -- but does equate it to hunting, which IS prohibited. The net result is that, if I wear my carry weapon and walk across the lawn of the town hall on the way from the library to the church -- I am "prima facie" guilty of hunting.

That's been on the books for years. I never knew it, and I'll bet of the several hundred other permit holders in town probably not more than a half dozen are aware of it.

[Hardcase]

Adding to Aguila Blanca's point, consider the "right turn on red" rules. Until 1992, it was up to the states until Congress passed a law essentially mandating it. You might remember the outcry over states' rights. No? Son of a gun.

Or U turns. Those are completely up to the state. You need to be aware of the state laws before you flip a U-ee.

Oh, left turn on red is also a state deal. Some say no. Some say from a one-way street to another one-way street. Some, like my dear home state, allow a left turn on red from a two-way street to a one-way street (but U turns only at marked intersections.)

If we can manage to drive in other states, I think that we could manage to carry concealed as well. Heck, in the states that have reciprocity, it's been happening for some time.

(I still don't like the legislation.)

[American Made]

Aguila Blanca,

Perhaps I didn't provide my best foot forward in that post. My belief is that our federal government should stay out of State/local affairs. Saying it another way, every branch of governemnt has it's own role to play and the role placed on the federal branch, by the constitution, has been displaced for other duties. We now have a federal government that refuses to enforce it's own laws. Yet..... they continue making more laws.

What is the proper role of congress?

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[BGutzman]

The parts I cant seem to find in Article 1 that seem to be in effect.

Write endless laws and regulate every possible action or consideration a citizen might have.

To enact trade agreements with nations that do not have the same restrictions in law on business, nor taxes on business nor concern itself with the inequity of trade balances. I could go on and on.... my point overall is much has gone ways that were never intended. I love my nation but that does not mean that I like the road were on....

When the time comes I will do my part and vote until then I write my representatives for whatever its worth... But I do not need the fed further in my gun rights.

[icedog88]

American Made,

What I am trying to say is that when I Pledge Allegiance, it is to The United States of America. I don't pledge it to my state, if I move through this country, I need show no special documents like a passport. To me, this country and not the individual states and their many arcane laws, such as not walking my goat in town or milking a cow while wearing red underwear, is who we need to ultimately go to if the states pass laws that are unjust or unduly restrictive. Not everything written in the past by the founders and scribes was correct every time. So all of the stated history lessons,while important, could be right fundamentally, but wrong in execution. Times change as do circumstance. Amendments to the Constitution bear this out.

So in my opinion, since my state doesn't offer reciprocity and the others surrounding it are of the same mind, essentially pinning me and my right to carry to the confines of this State border, I turn to the federal government to help fix what I consider wrong.

[jason_iowa]

I don't want the feds in on it.

[C0untZer0]

When people want something so badly what they're willing to give up to get it.

We're willing to hand over complete power to the federal government if they give us what want.

There was an amendment proposed by Illinois Congressman Tim Johnson that would have over-written or superceded Illinois law and given Illinois citizens the right to carry even though Illinois state law forbids it.

http://timjohnson.house.gov/index.cf...,29&itemid=489

If I didn't know Tim Johnson I'd say that his amendment was a poison pill.

It would have resulted in an instant constitutional challenge by the State of Illinois - as well it should.

Isn't it outragous that we would cede the power to overrule our state laws to the federal government?

I'll be the first to admit that our laws concerning gun ownership and carry in Illinois are bad - but they're OUR BAD LAWS

OURS !

The federal government has no right to throw out our laws nor should they ever!

[alloy]

That's a pretty standup attitude. Any chance Illinois can be flipped thru time to a state legislature more receptive to positive firearm changes?

It's been a while since I lived in a really restrictive state, but there is no comparison to how positive things can be, and how fast they can change, when your state government is on your side.

[icedog88]

Yes, they are bad laws and the bad laws will continue until someone changes them. Vote the law makers out? How long has THAT been attempted? Move? Not if your family, job, etc are there. So, what's left? Continue the status quo? Wait them out? Have someone with the power to change them, do so? I know what I choose because I'm tired of waiting. Doesn't do me any good if they change the law after I'm dead. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition to this proposed bill. Be more specific than the camel's nose under the tent. What exactly is the fear? What realistic alternatives have been offered instead?

[madmag]

Originally Posted by alloy

It's been a while since I lived in a really restrictive state, but there is no comparison to how positive things can be, and how fast they can change, when your state government is on your side.

I wish that message could get out more to the general public.

I live in a very gun friendly state. The police and local businesses are very supportive of CCW. There is not one store I can think of that restricts conceal carry. One of the local sheriff deputies even instructs classes for civilian CCW.

The lesson is, that with all this freedom for CCW the streets are not a shooting gallery. In fact, things are very low keyed. When you give law abiding citizens the right to CCW nothing really big happens except they protect themselves.....when necessary.

[Rusty35]

icedog88


Yes, they are bad laws and the bad laws will continue until someone changes them. Vote the law makers out? How long has THAT been attempted? Move? Not if your family, job, etc are there. So, what's left? Continue the status quo? Wait them out? Have someone with the power to change them, do so? I know what I choose because I'm tired of waiting. Doesn't do me any good if they change the law after I'm dead. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition to this proposed bill. Be more specific than the camel's nose under the tent. What exactly is the fear? What realistic alternatives have been offered instead?

My biggest fear of this bill.
For it to work, it will require some sort of standardization .

What this will mean in the end is, the states with the more lenient requirements will have to change their permit regulations to match those of the states with the most stringent requirements.

Realistic alternative is for the small group of states that dont have reciprocity to get on board and quit being silly.

[C0untZer0]

We were only a few votes short of a veto-proof majority vote the last time we tried to enact CCW legislation.

Really all we have to do is elect a new governor and that is a real possibility. The state is broke, wih the third or second worst credit rating out of 50 states. Corporations (Like Olin ammunition...) keep leaving the state, a huge portion of homeowners are upsdie down in their mortgages, their homes have lost portions of their value - but property taxes have not been re-adjusted, the job situation is really bleak, and the current Governor was the Lt. Governor for Rod Blagovich.

There is a real chance to get a pro-gun governor installed in the capitol. And even if we don't... we were only a few votes short of gettng it passed last time.

There is this thread on the forum somewhere about litigation versus legislation. There are 2 cases challenging Illinois ban on carrying. The effect on the Illinois legislature however has been that they've adopted a wait and see posture - to wait on these cases before pushing the carry bill again.

[C0untZer0]

People have asked "why is this so bad?" "What is the camel's nose under the tent." And people have said they don't see a horrible federal conspiracy in all of this - fair enough.

This may seem like a non-sequitur, but its not.

The U.S. Department of Education is opening up an investigation into the sexual assault case against Jerry Sandusky that allegedly occurred at Penn State.

Now, this a horrible thing, but historically these kinds of crimes have been dealt with by the state. I am sure that the Pennsylvania States Attorney can handle this without the help of the U.S. Department of Education.

Fifty years ago who would have ever thought that a department – called “Department of Education” would be spending tax payers' money and exercising investigatory powers to inquire into anything and everything remotely relating to an educational institution?

Where will that stop? Using the same logic – the U.S. Department of Education could open an investigation every time any sort of crime is ever committed in any kind of school in the U.S. It’s insane! But that is exactly what happens! There is your template for what happens when people have to live off of tax payer money – when they are federal employees and they have to justify their existence. They continue to build their power – to increase the size of their bureau or department and to increase the scope of their “authority.”

The best case scenario is that they are simply taking money from us (more and more of it), and wasting it. The worst case scenario is that they take power away from us and we have less and less ability to make choices for ourselves. We become marginalized and powerless.

If a federal gun law like this is passed – it recognizes the federal governments authority in this matter, and it opens the door for the federal government to further enact any kind of regulations in the future.

We like it now because it looks like those regulations are ones that we like. We’ll be sorry in the future when federal gun regulations come down the pike that we don’t like.

[icedog88]

alternative is for the small group of states that dont have reciprocity to get on board and quit being silly.

I agree completely! But this is highly unlikey given the comments I heard watching the debate and therefore, sadly, unrealistic.

While I appreciate the concern, the government, based on past action, is and has been, even at the state level, a give and take entity. Does it make it right? Not in my opinion. Unless the Supreme Court rules, it would seem that we are stuck with a reciprocity agreement, if it passes, that doesn't satisfy all. I don't think it will pass either, but I hope it does. In absence of a Court ruling or all states being happy happy joy joy with each other in regards to recognizing a national right to carry, I will probably continue supporting the bill unless someone provides me a reason more than the fed are coming, that it is bad. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the fed government is great, but in lieu of other options, what other choice do we have if we want to carry in a state that doesn't honor our permits?

As far as the Sandusky case, the alleged crimes took place on the campus of a school. So The Dept of Ed probably should be involved on some level. The same way we turn from local cops to state police to the FBI in the case of escalating seriousness, no?

[Hardcase]

The same way we turn from local cops to state police to the FBI in the case of escalating seriousness, no?

No. Each agency has a particular jurisdiction. It's not the seriousness of the crime, it's a combination of where the crime occurred and what law was broken.

In the Penn State case, the DoEd has determined that the University may have known that a serious crime took place, but did not report it to students, as required by federal law. Thus, they have jurisdiction. Now, whether or not that's a good thing, I don't know.

[Alaska444]

What we are dismissing is the simple fact that those states that don't have progressive CCW laws allowing their citizens to exercise their 2A rights voted those politicians into power and keep them there. Even within CA, there are many counties that are essentially shall issue, it is not a uniform entity. The rural counties are all on board the need for CCW for the citizens to protect themselves.

The FEDS NEVER, EVER, NEVER give you something without it costing you somewhere, some how, and at some time now or in the future. If folks really believe that they are being the friend of CCW, think again. This is plain and simply a Federal power grab. This is how America has lost most of its freedoms. While those on the CCW wish list for reciprocity look the other way, the FEDS are seeking to control this rather new phenomenon which started in FL in the late 80's.

Little by little, the courts and the states are winning this battle without any Federal help. Why give up the course now?

[Chaz88]

Little by little, the courts and the states are winning this battle without any Federal help. Why give up the course now?

I think the little by little might be the problem for many people. We are no longer a patient people. We have a short attention span and we want what we want and we want it now.

[Alaska444]

Then we risk losing all if we take it out of the states domain. The FEDs are not CCW friendly. This is a Federal power grab of the gravest extreme.

[icedog88]

Ok, bad example with FBI, but what I was saying was if it was just some simple assault case at Penn State, Dept of Ed probably wouldn't be involved.

I want it now is right! I don't want to wait to legally protect my family in another state with a concealed firearm in 20 frickin years. I do want it now. It's fine the way it is for people who never leave their state. I keep hearing elections, vote them out. Easier said than done. And how do you vote people out in other states that won't recognize reciprocity?

[C0untZer0]

Grab now... use later.


.