National CCW Law

[skeezix]

Yes it would be nice to have something that pushes more people to own and carry a firearm. And you are most assuredly correct that We The People have tread too softly.

The 2nd is not viewed as an outcast, more like a threat, which is why it is attacked so harshly. Of course, so are the others as well. There really isn't free speech, certainly not the right to a fair trial, nor are we secure in property or have had our petitions and grievances answered as noted to be our right in the first amendment.

I think it was John F Kennedy that said "When you make a peaceful revolution impossible you make a violent one inevitable." I would prefer not to see violent revolution in this country, but should it come to that it won't be a choice made from the civil side of the fence - so close to what was stated many years ago:

"We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends."

Government always has the choice, as do we, to settle things in a respectful, beautiful and glorious manner by giving way to liberty and freedom. The human spirit will always live somewhere, refusing to die.

[skeezix]

Skeezix, that's a simply wrong view of the 2nd amendment. Not even the founders believed the way you (and many others) do.

What was it that was wrong, and what was it that our founders believed differently?

The Bill of Rights was included for a reason, and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Do States have the right to remove freedom of speech? To remove the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure? To not be able to follow a religion of our choice? These are the unalienable rights this document was meant to defend, and placed there to reinforce this regardless of what the State did or did not do.

[gc70]

The Bill of Rights was included for a reason, and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Do States have the right to remove freedom of speech? To remove the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure? To not be able to follow a religion of our choice? These are the unalienable rights this document was meant to defend, and placed there to reinforce this regardless of what the State did or did not do.

The Bill of Rights, as adopted, only applied to the federal government. Thus, until 1833, the constitution of Massachusetts provided for the financial support of the Congregational Church.

[skeezix]

The Bill of Rights, as adopted, only applied to the federal government. Thus, until 1833, the constitution of Massachusetts provided for the financial support of the Congregational Church.

Because of what, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ? Indeed it seems in that light that the 1st amendment could possibly be seen that way, as it specifically targets Congress -

The Constitution (And Bill of Rights) were ratified by the States, and the States were bound to it just as the Federal government was. This is also noted in the preamble of the Bill of Rights when it was ratified (bold text is my own emphasis) on Dec 15, 1791:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article 6 in the Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I'm not seeing anything here that suggests States are not bound by the Bill of Rights in any way.

[Hugh Damright]

The Constitution (And Bill of Rights) were ratified by the States, and the States were bound to it just as the Federal government was.

No, the States requested and ratified the USBOR with the intent of binding the US, not themselves.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by skeezix

I'm not seeing anything here that suggests States are not bound by the Bill of Rights in any way.

You may not see it and it may be your opinion that the BORs apply to the states but the only opinion that matters and has legal force is that of the SCOTUS.

Al was right and until rather recently in our history and after the 14th amendment have some of the BORs been applied to the states. That is the reality. If the Founding Fathers thought as you did it would have been spelled out.

What you are missing is that your quotes concerning ratification was not acceptance of the BOR checking the states but rather the acceptance of federal supremacy by the states with the BORs and other parts checking the fed's power.

During the time of the COTUS writing the states were entirely sovereign entities with no central federal government.

[skeezix]

Then please send me some sources to show this because I am not seeing it. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Their intention was indeed to limit federal government, but it was also a limit on themselves since they are bound by the Constitution, and the amendments were ratified into it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by skeezix

Then please send me some sources to show this because I am not seeing it.

Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...ill_of_Rights)

Others may chime in. Read the references too.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by skeezix

What was it that was wrong, and what was it that our founders believed differently?

Um, everything you said in your post #73.

Hamilton (who was the staunchest proponent of a strong central government) didn't believe we needed a Bill of Rights. His thoughts were two-fold: 1) Since the document to be considered (the Constitution) did not give the central government any powers to affect individual liberty (but see point 2b, below), there was no need for additions of rights; and 2a) By adding such a list (of rights), it could be seen to disparage other rights that were left out of the list; and 2b) That such a list would be construed as to give the central government some authority, not listed elsewhere.

As we have all seen, Hamilton was correct on all counts.

Think I'm wrong? Then tell me where the right of travel, the right of personal privacy and the right of self defense exists, within the Constitution.

[Hugh Damright]

Their intention was indeed to limit federal government, but it was also a limit on themselves

How exactly do you envision the USBOR limiting the States? I think the only way it could be done is by federal powers, by construing the USBOR to be a delegation of federal powers. But one of the objections against a USBOR was that it might somehow be construed so as to increase federal powers, and Madison drafted the Ninth Amendment to prevent such a construction. His amendment, as presented to Congress, read:

"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."

Further, if the only way the USBOR can bind the States is by federal powers, then I think the most obvious way would be to have a US judicial power to review State laws. In other words, if your State violates your RKBA, you take them to the US courts, and the US sets them straight. But this sentiment seems removed from the US Constitution, which frames a US judicial power which does not extend to matters between a citizen and his State:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects."

And when the US exercised a judicial power over a matter between a citizen and a State, the States gave us the 11th Amendment, clarifying that the US judicial power shall not extend to matters between a citizen and a State.

Since the States would not delegate a US judicial power over matters between a citizen and a State, and since the Ninth Amendment was intended to ensure that the USBOR is not construed so as to increase federal powers, then I am at a loss as to how the USBOR could have possibly been intended to bind the States.

[Al Norris]

Hugh, once again, I find myself in agreement with you.

Happy Day!!

[Brian Pfleuger]

A tid-bit for thought:

If the BOR was intended to apply to the states then what would be the purpose of the states having the same exact rights, sometime the same exact words, in their own individual constitutions?

[skeezix]

If the BOR was intended to apply to the states then what would be the purpose of the states having the same exact rights, sometime the same exact words, in their own individual constitutions?

In my opinion it was to reaffirm these, but guess I have reading to do

[gc70]

John Marshall was a Federalist and, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, was a strong proponent of federal supremacy. Nevertheless, this is what Marshall wrote in the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Barron v. Baltimore:

In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government - not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.

[Hugh Damright]

These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.

And as we all know, federal powers are enumerated ... so if there is no expression indicating an intention, then there is no delegation of power. We cannot take the lack of a declaration and say that the States are bound because it doesn't say otherwise, as if the feds have a power unless it is specifically denied ... but rather we must take the lack of an expression indicating an intent to apply the USBOR to the States and construe it to mean that there is no such intent, no such delegation of power.

[vranasaurus]

If the USBOR had been intended to be or had actually been applied to the states there would have been no need for the 14th amendment.

The reason behind the amendment was to restrain state powers in regards to the rights of citizens.

[maestro pistolero]

John Marshall was a Federalist and, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, was a strong proponent of federal supremacy. Nevertheless, this is what Marshall wrote in the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Barron v. Baltimore:

Quote:
In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government - not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.

How is that ruling in conflict with being a "strong proponent of federal supremacy. Nevertheless, . . ."?
It seems entirely consistent to me.

[jkkimberfan]

CA, MD, NY, NJ, ILL, MA, etc.... contain 80% of the US population and virtually none of these people can get a home carry permit so they cannot carry with this law. Why the hoopla about a law that will only allow a tiny fraction of people who can already carry in their home state, as well as many states with a FL permit? We need a law that will include those stuck in CA, MD, NY, NJ, ILL and MA who can't carry in their home state, except if they go on vacation to a free state.

[Bismarck357]

Its a great Idea and I believe its been a long time and comin', but until its passed and theres no strings attached; I will continue to practice "Civil Disobedience" and carry my guns where ever I please.I have an Oregon CCW, a Washington CCW and a Florida CCW; I don't know off the top of my head how many states that covers, but I'm sure its alot. And to those states that have a problem with people carryin' guns,(I grew up in Wisconsin,and they'er one of the worst)I say "Go to hell!". I've been carryin' a gun since I was 14yrs old,and the plain and simple truth is if I had'nt; I would'nt be here to talk about it.

[green-grizzly]

I don't think it was perfectly clear that the bill of rights did not apply to the states. The Supreme Court didn't decide the issue until 1833. It was an open issue until then. Some state Supreme Courts reached the opposite conclusion - in at least one case the a State Supreme Court said the Second Amendment applied to the State (Georgia), even after the the US Supreme Court said it didn't! A lot of the things we thiink are obvious about the relations between the feds and the states are really fairly recent constructs.

It may have been kind of a moot point to the founders. The constitution did not create any rights. Those rights came from God or were natural rights; the rights applied to both the states and the federal government, regardless of whether or where they were written down.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by jkkimberfan

CA, MD, NY, NJ, ILL, MA, etc.... contain 80% of the US population and virtually none of these people can get a home carry permit so they cannot carry with this law.

That is simply not true...

1)Those states make up approximately 30% of the US population.

2)Most of those states allow some form of concealed carry. NY for example (because I live there) is virtually "Shall Issue" in the vast majority of the Upstate portion. The populations of NYC, Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany comprise roughly 47% of NY's population, meaning that approximately 53%, or 10 million people, have little or no trouble obtaining carry permits.

[langenc]

Reid is a joke. Yes he voted for it BUT only after a careful count to make sure it would not pass (60 votes).

Had it been a simple majority it would have been another ball game. Dont like the way they play then they will take the ball and keep it--NO VOTE.

[Yellowfin]

. Too bad the Supreme Court was so conservative, that they just couldn't stand that the 14th stood Federalism on its head, as it were.

Actually it's because they were so racist they couldn't stand to rule the correct way in Cruikshank and so unwilling to oppose blatant corruption in big cities that they completely and totally mangled the Slaughterhouse Cases. There is absolutely nothing dangerous or damaging about requiring the states to hold the 2nd Amendment inviolate and unspoiled and to completely remove disparate treatment of citizens based on their zip code. The 10th Amendment states that all matters not addressed by the Constitution and BoR are then and only then left to the states, and since the 2nd Amendment addresses gun control--meaning NONE allowed--that is covered and thus not a state matter. Feds can't restrict it nor can the states, period. It's supposed to be off the table from the get-go, no matter how much they want it to be, regardless of what reasons they come up with. If you're in North America and not in Canada or Mexico, you deserve to have the same total freedom of firearms whether you're in Anaheim or Augusta, Louisville or Long Island. Different speed limits, different time the bars close, maybe, but no problem buying, owning, or possessing any kind of gun when and you want. It's simply not up to elected people or with a badge to have a say on the matter, it should be completely off the table no ifs ands or buts.

It's only a bunch of idiotic BS that's ever given them the ill gotten permission to do so.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks, if in the righteousness of your advocacy of carry, you deliberately and directly suggest avoiding the law or that you do such, that is not acceptable to TFL. Please don't. Continued posting of such, leads to a ban.. Theoric discussion of civil disobedience is all well and good. Announcing a crime here - is not.

Thank you.

[Jofaba]

I was thinking about this yesterday, and even though it came so close to passing, I think that they pushed the envelope a bit too far.

What they should have done is try to pass a law saying that if you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon in your destination state, and in your origin state, that you can keep it loaded and accessible within your vehicle, but not on your person outside your vehicle. Similar to the law saying you can have a gun in the car (unloaded) if your origin and destination states allow it.

Or something similar. It probably would have passed and it would have been "good enough" for most of us.