Constitutional Carry Legislation

[JustThisGuy]

Is anyone aware if there is any movement towards national right to carry legislation, or a national concealed handgun license that would allow holders to carry in every state?

[NJgunowner]

There is not. It's the belief of congress that this should be determined by individual states and not the federal government.

I'm sure it has come up before, but there has never been a serious attempt at passing legislation.

[shortwave]

There is not.

But it sure would be better then playing this 'cc bingo' we have to play today traveling from state to state.

[Tom Servo]

But it sure would be better then playing this 'cc bingo' we have to play today traveling from state to state.

I don't think it would. If we were to give the Federal government the right to manage concealed carry, they'd have to settle on very restrictive standards to appease opposition from states like New York and Massachusetts. There would be a national registry of CCW holders.

BTW, "constitutional carry" usually means a system under which no permit of any kind is required to carry, as with Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona.

[JustThisGuy]

Thanks Tom. Both are good points.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

BTW, "constitutional carry" usually means a system under which no permit of any kind is required to carry, as with Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona.

Even that is a misnomer.

The Court in Heller described what "constitutional carry" entails. Like speech, it may be regulated as to time, place and manner. That some States have chosen to deregulate carry, does not make such (deregulation) any more or less constitutional than another State that does regulate carry.

[JustThisGuy]

"The Court in Heller described what "constitutional carry" entails. Like speech, it may be regulated as to time, place and manner. That some States have chosen to deregulate carry, does not make such (deregulation) any more or less constitutional than another State that does regulate carry."

As it applies to this case, I understand that means that States may regulate time, place and manner, but may not allow rights to their own citizens that are not also available to the citizens of other States as regards to 2A because 2A is a universal right of all U.S. citizens.

Is that assumption correct (though untested)?

[Al Norris]

Yup. That is almost exactly what Peterson v. LaCabe is all about.

[shortwave]

Tom,
I understand what you're saying about keeping the Fed. government out of the equation. I agree. I also feel the way current laws, state or city, are pertaining to cc from state-to-state has to change.

Supreme Court rulings from winning lawsuits against some of these states/citys discriminating against our rights are in order.

As it stands today, state to state cc reciprocity and state laws can change dailey. Hence the term "cc bingo"

Not knowing from day to day if its legal for us to travel cc'ing from state A to state B(lets not forget the states traveled through to get from A to B) is ludicrous. Too, we can't forget some of the restrictive city ordnances/laws prohibiting lawful citizens to cc guns whether you live in that city or passing through.

So, we have:

1. The 2A that says we have the right to arm ourselves.
2.State reciprocating laws that can change dailey.
3.State/City laws that have been allowed to deny people of their 2A rights to arm themselves.

Since the 2A gives us the right to arm ourselves, that right should not be discriminated against as to what state/city we're allowed to arm ourselves. There has to be a set of ground rules that allows us to protect ourselves while in Washington D.C. or in the City of Chicago the same as in Arizona or Ohio.

Again, hopefully Peterson vs Lacabe along with some of the other lawsuits in progress will iron out some of these discriminations.

[overkill0084]

Sounds good on the surface. However, federal intervention into anything is seldom good news.
"We're from the govt and we're here to help."

[JerryM]

I'm with Tom on this.
+1
Jerry

[Standing Wolf]

BTW, "constitutional carry" usually means a system under which no permit of any kind is required to carry, as with Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona.

The newest is Wyoming. Four out of 50 is a start.

[JustThisGuy]

What I seem to be hearing is a chorus of:

This is better off settled by SCOTUS than the Federal Legislature.

Let's hope that it is. CC Bingo is truly the term to use.

[RantModeOn] I was just planning a trip to Oregon from Texas and the real wild-card is City ordinances. For example Colorado state law is superseded by Denver City law. So I have to stow my weapon into a locked container before I enter Denver city limits and then can take it out again when I head out of town.

And Denver is easy as it is a large city and the ordinance is easy to find. What about all the small hamlets along the way, especially if one likes to travel 2-lane roads in an RV which go through every small town. One can easily find oneself in jail or presented with a big fine, or lose one's $1,000 firearm when stopping to ask a cop for directions, or caught in a poorly marked speed trap (as many small communities are prone to set up).

I can't imagine that a right that is enshrined in the Bill of Rights can be so arbitrarily ABRIDGED by states and local governments, with absolutely no practical way for a sojourner to know whether or not he/she is breaking what seems clearly to be unconstitutional abridgements of their right to keep and bear arms.

One only has to look to Canton, Ohio to see how badly this sort of thing can end. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457739

I'd love to see a case on just this issue (interstate traveler unknowingly breaking state/local gun carry law) brought before the court. I suspect that SCOTUS will first have to rule that all U.S. citizens have a right to self defense outside the home before any ruling on interstate travelers could happen. To go directly there is perhaps a stretch right now. [/RantModeOff]

[youngunz4life]

I don't think it would. If we were to give the Federal government the right to manage concealed carry, they'd have to settle on very restrictive standards to appease opposition from states like New York and Massachusetts. There would be a national registry of CCW holders.

what's to say they have to agree to a more restrictive one to appease certain states? It would probably end up somewhere in the middle: somewhere between HI+NJ and AK, VT, and AZ

[JimPage]

It's best to keep the Feds out of it. It's a state issue. I don't want Eric Holder or Obama's lackey's involved. Who knows who may get elected to add draconian restrictions later on.

Diversity isn't always bad. Inconvenient maybe, but I like to be able to visit a truly free Vermont from my "least free state in the US", New York. I have a NY license but it's not good in NYC or for any guns other than are listed on my license.

[jgcoastie]

Originally Posted by 10th Amendment

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.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms for citizens, there were no powers delegated to the federal gubmit for regulation, nor were there powers which prohibit states from enacting regulation.

Therefore, it is stirctly a state-level issue and must be completely reserved for each state to do as they see best. Likewise, I do not believe that the federal gubmit has the power to regulate firearms, as I am a firm believer in the limits imposed in the Constitution and its amendments being the only power/authority that the feds have. And yes, that would mean that every federal law passed IRT firearms should, I believe, be null and void.

The "interstate commerce" clause is shaky ground to stand on, and complete BS, IMO. I believe that ALL issues related to firearms/carry/ammo/etc are strictly state issues. This gives people the option to "vote with their feet" and get the heck out of a state that takes a sour view upon firearms.

[maestro pistolero]

If anything, post 'carry outside the home', I'd like to see generalized legislation mirroring court decisions which reinforce that the states may say HOW, buy not WHETHER a non-disqualified person may carry, and that restriction and regulations may not be onerous.

Then we would have two branches of the government declaring the right, with the third branch holding the responsibility to uphold it.

[jgcoastie]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

...restriction and regulations may not be onerous.

You'd have to have better wording than that MP... What may seem onerous to us is simply "common-sense safety measures" to the brady bunch... :barf:

Clearly written and drawn lines must be formed so as to leave the absolute smallest amount or (preferrably) zero items open to speculation and (more importantly) interpretation by future courts.

[Don H]

Originally Posted by JustThisGuy

I can't imagine that a right that is enshrined in the Bill of Rights can be so arbitrarily ABRIDGED by states and local governments, with absolutely no practical way for a sojourner to know whether or not he/she is breaking what seems clearly to be unconstitutional abridgements of their right to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights was originated to constrain the power and actions of the federal government, not state or local governments. Only later were some of the Amendments incorporated to the states. The USSC has only recently (in the glacial judicial pace that is the norm) held that the RKBA, in some manner, may apply to the states. What that manner may be will likely be the subject of litigation for some decades with both advances and losses for both sides of the question.

[Tom Servo]

what's to say they have to agree to a more restrictive one to appease certain states? It would probably end up somewhere in the middle: somewhere between HI+NJ and AK, VT, and AZ

Well, first of all, people in more permissive states would see a net loss in rights.

Second, once a standard was established on the federal level, we'd see increasing efforts to make it more stringent. It would only take one serious tragedy, and a bill could be passed to make carry more difficult for the entire nation in one fell swoop. Remember, the balance of the legislature has the opportunity to change every two years.

[maestro pistolero]

You'd have to have better wording than that MP...

...yes and no. The courts will define onerous in the various cases. According to long established civil rights legislation, regulations close to the core right must be narrowly tailored and get decided with a very high level of scrutiny. (if not quite strict scrutiny)

The most helpful thing the congress could do, is pass legislation that carefully mirrors and reinforces what the high court rules. At this point, the ball is in the court's court, so to speak.

Any sweeping mandate from the Feds must have a solid basis in case law to withstand the inevitable challenges from state's AGs.

[HoraceHogsnort]

Is anyone aware if there is any movement towards national right to carry legislation, or a national concealed handgun license that would allow holders to carry in every state?
__________________
JustThisGuy


I don't want the federal government anywhere NEAR right to carry legislation. Anybody who'se been watching the federal government for any time at all should be wary of letting them branch out into new areas. Right to carry laws rightfully belong in the states.

[Don H]

Thankfully, no.

[Crankgrinder]

i am all for concealed carry and do so myself. i know this may be a bit off subject to a point but it does bother me that should i find myself in a bad situation requiring the use of my gun i would then need my lawyer(s) and probably $ 30,000 in court/atty fees to "prove" why i had to use my gun not to mention having the gun taken as "evidence" on top of it. it is nice to carry but from where i sit unless youre quite well-off to uphold your rights in court then its kindof like wearing jewelry?

[JustThisGuy]

"...and probably $ 30,000 in court/atty fees to "prove" why i had to use my gun..."

IMHO $30,000 will just get you into court. Look at $100,000 to get out. And be thankful that you are alive to go through the courts.