The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 15, 2011, 11:57 AM   #51
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
I think that the "full faith and credit" clause means that if I have a permit to CCW in Virginia, then other States have to respect that I have a permit to CCW in Virginia, but they do not have to treat it as a permit to CCW in their State ... this new interpretation of the "full faith and credit" clause, where State permits have to be treated as interstate permits, seems like another giant leap towards consolidation.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:04 PM   #52
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Here's what would happen if this bill passes and is signed into law (as improbable as it may be), the way the bill currently reads:

If you are a resident of MD; CA; NJ; NYC; and to a greater or lessor extent, NY; MA and CT, your not having a resident permit, you will not be able to carry in your resident State. Yet, everyone else who has a permit (resident or non resident) will be allowed to CC in your State.

That is the bulk of US citizens that will not be able to exercise a fundamental right, in their own State.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 05:05 PM   #53
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
Here's what would happen if this bill passes and is signed into law (as improbable as it may be), the way the bill currently reads:

If you are a resident of MD; CA; NJ; NYC; and to a greater or lessor extent, NY; MA and CT, your not having a resident permit, you will not be able to carry in your resident State. Yet, everyone else who has a permit (resident or non resident) will be allowed to CC in your State.

That is the bulk of US citizens that will not be able to exercise a fundamental right, in their own State.
You are absolutely correct. And it is my hope and expectation that after a year or three of such nonsense, once there is a record that the invading hordes of armed outsiders didn't cause rivers of blood to run in the streets and the locals wake up to the fact that Uncle Joe from Billings can carry a gun when he visits me but I can't -- that the pressure will be on the restrictive states to become a lot less restrictive.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 06:31 PM   #54
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Illinois for instance requires a FOID to purchase a handgun or ammunition if I remember reading correctly. Are they going to let me carry the handgun I bought at a Virginia yard sale and let me have a box of spare ammo in the glove box with no FOID? Or is all this going to work itself out?
Sounds like something lawyers may get a wonky kick out of observing....as the nuances and loopholes get ironed out nationwide, but some of us maybe not so much as Random Officer Upset locks us in the pokey.

I'll just watch this one with a bit of skepticism as I keep to the states I trust.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 07:29 PM   #55
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Quote:
don't see Obama signing it
I didn't see him signing a bill to allow carry in parks either but he did.....
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 07:33 PM   #56
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eghad
Quote:
don't see Obama signing it

I didn't see him signing a bill to allow carry in parks either but he did.....
__________________
If it had been a stand-alone bill rather than an amendment to the credit card bill, I am positive that he wouldn't have signed it.
Don H is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 08:50 PM   #57
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,327
Quote:
If it had been a stand-alone bill rather than an amendment to the credit card bill, I am positive that he wouldn't have signed it.
I think you're right. The Credit Card Bill of Rights was a hot-button, must-have piece of legislation, and we were able to keep the national park initiative attached to it. The administration didn't like it one bit, but they were stuck. H.R. 822 doesn't have the same status.

Incidentally, Dave Kopel spoke to Congress regarding the bill, and the transcript is up at Volokh.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 04:55 PM   #58
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
I think you're right. The Credit Card Bill of Rights was a hot-button, must-have piece of legislation, and we were able to keep the national park initiative attached to it. The administration didn't like it one bit, but they were stuck. H.R. 822 doesn't have the same status.
True, but you never know what elected officials will do to gain any and all possible votes before an election. Let's hope for the best.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 08:22 PM   #59
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,327
Quote:
True, but you never know what elected officials will do to gain any and all possible votes before an election.
Actually, the 2nd Amendment is pretty much a non-issue in this election. I don't think one vote for or against a piece of 2A legislation is going to be noticed outside the gun culture, and we'll already have made up our minds anyway.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 10:43 PM   #60
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Damright
I think that the "full faith and credit" clause means that if I have a permit to CCW in Virginia, then other States have to respect that I have a permit to CCW in Virginia, but they do not have to treat it as a permit to CCW in their State ... this new interpretation of the "full faith and credit" clause, where State permits have to be treated as interstate permits, seems like another giant leap towards consolidation.
Nope.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...+Credit+Clause
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 10:18 PM   #61
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
Despite your interpretation of the "full faith and credit" clause, there have traditionally been State permits i.e. intrastate permits which other States do not have to recognize. CCW permits fall into this category, and to construe it otherwise would in fact be something new, not some settled/traditional construction as you seem to imagine.

Regardless, I don't recall that H.R. 822 relies on the "full faith and credit" clause. IIRC, it asserts that the right to carry a concealed weapon is protected by the 2nd and 14th Amendments, and that it is an interstate commerce issue ... and also that it reduces crime, as if they're saying that reciprocity is for the "general welfare".

Can anyone think of a precedent, where federal legislation asserts that something is a constitutionally protected right, and an interstate commerce issue, yet recognizes that States can disallow it?


"One of the great distinctions of the American system is that we try always to distinguish between the means and the end - between the goal itself, and the way in which a goal is reached." -Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, 1963
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 11:57 PM   #62
Wrothgar
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 778
To the guy that was talking about Denver...

Denver honors CCW's from any state that the state of Colorado has reciprocity with. No need to stow the gun in the glove compartment. BUT, do NOT try to open carry. Anywhere within the state, pretty much, unless you're up in the mountains.
Wrothgar is offline  
Old September 18, 2011, 12:08 AM   #63
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Damright
Despite your interpretation of the "full faith and credit" clause, there have traditionally been State permits i.e. intrastate permits which other States do not have to recognize. CCW permits fall into this category, and to construe it otherwise would in fact be something new, not some settled/traditional construction as you seem to imagine.
Hugh, I'm not "imagining" anything. I am fully aware that the carry licenses/permits issued by the individual states today are not universally recognized by the other states. That's the reason for this proposed legislation. All I'm saying is that this proposed act should not be necessary, because the issue should be settled by the Full Faith and Credit clause.

I know it is not, so something akin to this bill is necessary.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 05:42 PM   #64
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
Quote:
the issue should be settled by the Full Faith and Credit clause.
What exactly do y'all think that the FF&C clause should mean? For example ... suppose that one State issues a CCW permit to a 21 year old, and he then visits a State which requires that a person be 23 years old to obtain a CCW permit ... should he be able to carry in that State even though he doesn't meet the minimum age requirements? That seems to be how the FF&C clause works, because the minimum age for marriage varies from State to State, but other States must recognize a marriage even if it doesn't meet their minimum age requirements.

It seems a lot more complicated than just saying that the FF&C should mean that States must recognize CCW permits like they do driver's licenses. I don't know enough about all types of State permits to comprehend the end result of forcing reciprocity upon them all, but it seems evident that the FF&C clause had no such intent.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 08:23 PM   #65
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Hugh? This time I agree 100% with you.

Think about it, folks.

If the FF&C clause did what some of you think it does, then why did the Feds have to try and "blackmail" the States into accepting the REAL ID? Why didn't the Federal Congress simply mandate the changes?

The answer is that the Feds have no power whatsoever over State issued drivers licenses. It is strictly a State police power. It was the States that decided reciprocity between each other, not the feds.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 10:48 PM   #66
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,327
Quote:
Hugh? This time I agree 100% with you.
So do I, even if he did stand me up for that pillow fight a couple of years back.

Frankly, I have real doubts as to whether H.R. 822 will pass the Senate. Furthermore, I worry what will happen if more restrictive states choose to "opt out" of compliance by refusing to issue permits to even their own residents.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 24, 2011, 08:07 AM   #67
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,792
From the NRA-ILA this morning,

Quote:
As we reported last week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security recently held a hearing on H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011."
This critically important bill, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)
No further info was in the email
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13001 seconds with 7 queries