National Concealed Carry...checking status...

[johnelmore]

Ive been waiting patiently for President Trump to push national concealed carry. I have a feeling its just another one of my wild dreams that may never come true. I have not lost hope, however, lets just say I have become used to being disappointed about these matters.

So what is the status?

[BarryLee]

Well, Trump may very well sign it, but the House and Senate have to pass a Bill first. Based on the amount of time left this session and the other contentious issues I doubt we’ll see anything this year. The WSJ ran a story a few day ago about a possible Bill making suppressors more readily available which seemed a little more likely, but then again not sure it’ll happen this session.

[jmhyer]

While I'd love to see every state reciprocate with every other state, I really don't think I'm in favor of a federal law mandating it. Mostly because of my general stance on federalism vs. states' rights. And, because of the states' rights issue, I'm not sure a federal mandate would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Now, taking suppressors off the NFA list is entirely doable and I'd love to see that!

[JoeSixpack]

Im with ya jmhyer
Suppressors should not even be regulated.
If anything they should be encouraged as a safety device.

The pity is most guns aren't threaded from the factory, But if the law changed I bet we'd see a lot more guns come threaded as standard.

As far as nation wide reciprocity, I think it would be a mess given the wide range of laws state to state.

Unlike a drivers license traffic laws are like 95% uniform.

It would require a heavy handed approach to standardize laws for it to work smoothly and I think that might be going to far.

Im in favor instead of just passing Constitutional Carry on a state by state basis, some states are a loss cause and will take the will of the voters in those state to inflict real change.

[ShootistPRS]

All the federal government would have to do is compare concealed weapons permits to marriage, driver, and court documentation. All states must honor the legal documents of any other state.
For national open carry they would only have pass a law that defines the right to keep and bear arms and as a right no state can interfere with that right.
California, Washington DC and New York wouldn't like it but they would be forced to recognize the individual right to carry - at least openly.
They did the same thing for marriage and a host of other discriminatory acts.

It is an individual right and the state is not lawfully able to refuse it to the general population.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

All the federal government would have to do is compare concealed weapons permits to marriage, driver, and court documentation. All states must honor the legal documents of any other state.....

How do you come up with this nonsense? There is so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin.

1. Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

   All the federal government would have to do is compare concealed weapons permits to...

   How and on what authority?
   
   Under the Constitution, the federal government is a government of limited, specified powers. The Constitution specifies what each branch of the federal government (the legislative, executive, and judicial) is supposed to do and specifies what powers each branch of the federal government has.
   
   So please explain to us how any of those three branches of government would compare concealed weapons permits to marriage, driver, and court documentation and what in the Constitution authorizes that branch of the government to do so.
   
   

2. Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

   ...marriage, driver, and court documentation. All states must honor the legal documents of any other state....

   And that is not accurate.
   
   I thought that we'd already driven a stake through the heart of this "full faith and credit" fallacy, but I guess not. So let's try again.
   
   There is a lot of misunderstanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. Let's look at what it actually says (Article IV, Section 1):

   Section 1.
   

   Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

   As far as a carry permit being a public act, it is not. "Public act" means:

   (Law) an act or statute affecting matters of public concern. Of such statutes the courts take judicial notice.

   or:

   An act of legislation affecting the public as a whole

   Let's look at how this actually applies:
   
   
   • A common application is with respect to marriage. If a couple has entered into a marriage in one State under the laws of that State, they will be recognized as married in every other State. (But that doesn't mean that a marriage license issue in one State may be used to enter into a marriage in another State.)
     
     
   • If one acquires title to property (real or personal) under the laws of one State, his ownership of that property will be recognized in every other State.
     
     
   • If one secures a money judgement in one State against a person, that judgement may be enforced in the courts of another State in which the judgement debtor or his property might be found.
     
     
   • "Full Faith and Credit" also serves a basis for state-to-state extradition of persons charge with crimes or convicted of crimes in other States.
     
     
   • A and B negotiate and enter into a contract in State X under which B will be the general contractor and build a building for A in State Y. B is licensed as a general contractor in State Y, and A is a corporation incorporated in State Z, having its home office in State X, and doing business in various States including States X and Y. A dispute develops, and B sues A in court in State Y. Under common conflicts of law principles, the court in State Y will consider questions regarding the performance of that contract using the laws of State Y. But with regard to questions relating to the formation of the contract, the State Y court will usually apply the laws of State X.
   
   And since the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been around for over 200 years, you might expect there to be some history. See, for example, this article:

   ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....

   Or this article:

   ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...

   The Full Faith and Credit Clause can be very important -- even if perhaps not important to what concerns us here the most, the RKBA. But there are other legal matters which can be of huge significance to the parties involved, and with respect to which the Full Faith and Credit Clause can be extremely helpful.
   
   
   • What if you and your spouse were required for business reasons to relocate from State B, the State in which you were married and in which you had lived for 10 years, to State A, but you discovered that once living under the laws of State A you were no longer considered to be married.
     
     
   • A need to be able to enforce judgements or court orders in multiple States is very common. Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, you couldn't count on doing so.
     
     
   • Disputes about who owns what are not uncommon especially when conflicting laws of multiple States are involved. The Full Faith and Credit Clause helps sort out those kinds of disputes.
     
     
   • And then there are matters involving multi-state child custody disputes.
   
   
3. How things works with various types of licenses.
   
   
   1. A marriage license issued by a State is an authorization for two people to enter into a contract of marriage in that State. Once that contract of marriage is entered into, if done so legally and not under circumstances which make it voidable (e. g., fraud), the two people have acquired a particular status, i. e., as a lawfully married couple -- the state of being married to each other.
      
      
      1. Once two people have lawfully contracted marriage in State A and thus acquired the state of being a married couple, it has long been the case that those two people will almost always be recognized as being legally married to each other in every other State. So they will be considered to be a married couple by State B.
         
         
      2. But any consequences of being recognized as married by State B will be decided under the laws of State B. For example:
         
         
         1. If you and your spouse remain residents of State A but have investments in State B, your liability for State B income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State B.
            
            
         2. If after having been married for a while and living in State A (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State B (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State B, even though the marriage was contracted in State A and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State A continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State A.
      
      
   2. But if two unmarried people secure a marriage license in State A, they could not take that license into State B, and use it to enter into a marriage in State B. And that is pretty much universal with regard to licenses.
      
      
      1. A license to do something in State A is in general not recognized as a license to do that thing in State B.
         
         
      2. So if you are licensed in State A as a physician, a lawyer, a contractor, or anything else for which a license is required, you can't expect to be able to go to State B and be a physician, lawyer, contractor or anything else for which a license is required.
         
         
      3. The act of contracting marriage, which a marriage license authorizes two people to do, is a single act. Once it is performed, it's done; and the parties have acquired a certain status. That status is reflected in a marriage certificate.
         
         
      4. On the other hand, the practice of law or medicine or working as a contractor or barber or any of any number of things generally requiring a state license, is an ongoing activity.
         
         
      5. Driving is an exception. It's an exception because States have agreed among themselves to honor each others driver's licenses.

[armoredman]

Thank you for that detailed explanation, Frank.

[Frank Ettin]

My pleasure.

As I've said before, law is complex and non-intuitive. Details matter.

Understanding law requires study, whether formal or informal, doing the research, and reading cases. It requires an adequate knowledge base. One can't expect to just be able to figure it all out

[heyjoe]

your efforts to do just that are appreciated

[Gary L. Griffiths]

your efforts to do just that are appreciated

+1 on that!

[Berserker]

I am a states rights person.

It is more than checking status in other states. Requirements vary a great deal between states.

It is not a matter of just sharing data.

[Berserker]

Lots of cutting and pasting, which could simply be said states have different requirements.

My go to is 10th amendment. But I think it is poorly upheld.


The history of drivers license may be interesting. With federal roadstudent and money, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done with a gun.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Berserker

I am a states rights person.

It is more than checking status in other states. Requirements vary a great deal between states.

But do you believe that states' rights should override the Constitution?

Remember, the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution, and thanks to the McDonald case the Second Amendment now applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

IMHO the entire construct of needing a license or permit to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is invalid but, overlooking that for the moment, if I have permission slips from multiple states, all of which conduct criminal background checks before issuing my permission slips, how is it in any way just or proper that in some states I am not allowed to carry? Remember, you still have to conduct yourself according to the laws of the state you're in, so that's not the point. Why aren't my multiple permits (let alone just my home state permit) recognized in a number of states?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Remember, the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution, and thanks to the McDonald case the Second Amendment now applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

Wasn't the U.S. Constitution supposed to be applied just to the Federal Government? Even if the U.S. Supreme Court thinks it should also apply to the States as well, shouldn't all of it apply? It is bad if the U.S. Supreme court applies a law to the States that only applies to the Federal Government but worse if they selectively apply which sections of it should also apply to the States.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

Wasn't the U.S. Constitution supposed to be applied just to the Federal Government? Even if the U.S. Supreme Court thinks it should also apply to the States as well, shouldn't all of it apply? It is bad if the U.S. Supreme court applies a law to the States that only applies to the Federal Government but worse if they selectively apply which sections of it should also apply to the States.

Orignally, the Constitution provided the framework for and limitations to the powers of the federal government. Then along came the 14th Amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

Over the years, the Supreme Court has determined that the 14th Amendment means that various rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well as to the federal government. But they have done it one right at a time. The 2nd Amendment RKBA was the most recent. That's what McDonald was all about. In the earlier Heller case the SCOTUS ruled that the RKBA is an individual right. But Dick Heller was a resident of Washington DC, which is not a state -- DC falls under federal jurisdiction. McDonald took it the next step, and resulted in the SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Exactly and the problem is what level of state laws violate the 2nd Amendment. This is played out with other civil liberties issues all the time.

Usually, the states want to constrain individual rights depending on their political orientation.

As far as the original issue, forget any gun positive legislation coming out of the Congress in the foreseeable future. They are paralyzed by the circus and emphasis on standard GOP issues that are much more important to them.

More analysis turns to politics, so I shall cease.

[Berserker]

I do agree it is a valid argument that 2A should preclude the need for any permit. But each state has set requirements, contest to that. Each state has its own requirement on who should carry. This is different than simply saying don't break any state law.

So until we can enforce 2A, I say the state should decide who carries in their state, as oppressive as those states may be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So the state can decide you cannot own guns? That is a logical extension of your position. Many states do decide what guns you can have.

If owning a firearm and carrying such is a reasonable analysis of the 2nd Amend., it is not acceptable to accept a theoretical state's right basis for their laws.

That reciprocity legislation is needed shows that states will take away fundamental rights as they did with voting requirements, restrictions on marriage (interracial) and other personal liberties.

States rights cannot be a basis for depriving fundamental human rights.

[Berserker]

Glenn, I believe 2A should trump most state laws. Buy the world we live in it doesnt. I think you need to fight battles and not one big war. I think states 2A groups need to fight individual restrictions.

But since many states do not have constitutional carry, I think it is tough to say a permit from a state with no requirement is good in a state that has training.

I am against requiring training. Ding bats will always be ao, a single mother in the hood can't get to it, and can barely afford a gun.


I think they should have you sign a sheet with 22 font with basics. Only for self defense and bread list of places can't carry.


I am for constitutional carry too.