National Reciprocity is Dead

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

Even if the courts view "keep and bear" as two separate issues to address, and they determine it as separate or one in terms of rights, I don't know that it would make a difference in a court challenge against national reciprocity. I'm in favor of national reciprocity, but I'm also in favor of states determining their own training requirements for permit holders. So, it gets too complicated for a simple guy like me to decide who's right and who's wrong.

That's because you've missed the big picture -- ALL permitting schemes are, ultimately, unconstitutional. So the notion that states should be allowed to determine their own requirements for permit holders is moot, because if the "right" to keep and bear arms is to actually be a "right" -- and is not to be infringed -- then the entire concept of permits to exercise that "right" is a flawed concept.

And, yes, I am aware that various of the lawyer types, here and elsewhere (including some I respect highly, such as Frank Ettin) have noted that all constitutional rights have historically been subject to "reasonable" regulation. But that's based on history, and that history applies to other rights in the Bill of Rights. Other of those rights may indeed be subject to reasonable regulation. Take the Fourth Amendment, for example:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So we are (theoretically) protected against UNreasonable searches and seizures. That automatically means that we are subject to reasonable searches and seizures. Who decides when a search or a seizure is "reasonable"? A judge.

But ... I respectfully submit that none of the other rights enumerated or suggested in the Bill of Rights expressly says, right within itself, that it is NOT subject to "reasonable" (or unreasonable) regulation. Only the Second Amendment says this. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is a regulation if not an infringement? The Second Amendment, when read honestly and objectively, tells us that it is NOT subject to regulation. And in this it is unique among all the rights in the Bill of Rights.

[44 AMP]

That’s why the ‘argument’ that national reciprocity would ‘undermine’ the more restrictive concealed carry requirements of some states isn’t valid, just as the states’ rights ‘argument’ isn’t valid.

I believe you are entirely wrong about this, and that states rights IS a valid argument.

This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.

I'm sorry, but anything from the Fed telling states what they must do involves state's rights. Now, sometimes states agree with the Fed, and sometimes they do not. And when they do not, it is usually that they have the right to disagree.

We already HAVE national reciprocity. Its just some states don't agree to it. Much as I hate to argue the side of restrictive laws, the states that choose not to recognize CCW permits from other states have a right, in law, not to do so, if they so choose.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The other front in the debate today is what kinds of "arms" are protected by the 2A. The anti-gun types want to ban anything that looks remotely like a military firearm. Yet the sense of the 2A is that the People should be allowed to bear the same arms as the military. Heller makes reference to guns in popular use (or similar language -- I didn't look it up). The AR-15 is unquestionably one of the THE most popular firearms types in use in the United States today. It is NOT an M16 or an M4, so it is not a "military" or "military type" firearm -- it doesn't have selective fire. Period. In WW1 the United States used the 1903 Springfield rifle. That was a military firearm. It was built by the official, U.S. government arms factory, Springfield Armory. To be logical, then, the anti-gun types should be claiming that any bolt action, centerfire rifle is a "military type" firearm with no legitimate civilian use, and should therefore be banned.

(Yeah, I know -- don't give them any ideas.) You can see how that argument just doesn't make sense. Cosmetic features don't determine what a gun is for. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge as the AR-15, and has a detachable magazine. But it doesn't have a pistol grip, so it doesn't look all scary-like and "military." Will a .223 round from a Mini-14 kill you just as dead as a .223 round from an AR-15? Probably. So they're just playing their usual game. Today they're after easily identifiable cosmetic features. Once they ban AR-15 pattern rifles, then they'll come back for semi-auto, centerfire rifles in general. Then they'll come after bolt-action centerfires, and after that ...

Agree 100%. Pretty much every commonly-used and owned firearm in this country is either a military design or based off a military design. They'd have to ban every single gun there is essentially to ban military guns. But the idea of the right to keep and bear arms is the right to the basic weapons of war. It is not about possessing weapons selectively approved of by the government for the lowly citizens to use. It is about the right of the people to possess weapons of war.

Part of the problem is this brainwashing of many that weapons of war are only for the Almighty State to control. They are not. Yes, there are certain classes of weapons that people don't have a right to possess, but as far as basic arms go, such as pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, swords, bow-and-arrow, etc...people have a right to the same weapons a military would use.

But, IMO, much of the modern gun rights movement shoots itself in the foot, no pun intended, on this, by constantly insisting that a weapon such as an AR-15 is not a military weapon, because it is semiautomatic. It is stupid. It very much is a military weapon, just one lacking the automatic fire feature, and gun rights proponents should point this out, and point out that ALL guns are military in origin, and that that is the whole point behind the concept of the right. Trying to argue that this or that gun is not "military" is playing defense and playing right into the gun controllers' hands because it gives up the idea of any right to weapons of war. Acknowledging that yes they are military and people have a fundamental right to possess basic weapons of war, is offense and a way to undermine a key argument of the gun control lobby.

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic version of the M-16. Civilians, law enforcement, and the military all use them (and yes I know that law enforcement are also technically civilians, but I am using the different terms to make a point)

The 12 gauge pump-action shotgun is used by the U.S. military, law enforcement, and civilians. It has been used in every military conflict of this nation since WWI, and during WWI was nicknamed by the Germans the "Trench Broom," and they wanted any American soldiers captured using it to be tried for war crimes.

The Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, a very popular hunting rifle, is used by the military and law enforcement as a sniper rifle. Other bolt-actions are plenty useful as sniper rifles and the bolt-action mechanism is military in origin.

The lever-action rifle is a military design, the first one created during the Civil War by the Union, called the Henry rifle.

The .45 caliber 1911 handgun was created as a military handgun and used by the military for years. Also has been used by civilians and law enforcement for years.

The 9mm handgun is used by the military, law enforcement, and civilians and has been for years.

Breech-loading muskets were used by military and civilians.

Muzzle-loading muskets were used by military and civilians.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.

In simple terms, firearm carry regulations are a matter of federal jurisdiction or a matter of state jurisdiction. If they are a matter of federal jurisdiction for the purpose of compelled CCW reciprocity, they will also be a matter of federal jurisdiction when congress shifts and decides that you can't carry anything more effective than a very soft pillow.

If it is a state matter, the huge populations of NY and CA get a terrible deal, but lots of people in other states get more reasonable treatment from their neighbors.

This will not be a federal issue just for the purpose of mandatory reciprocity.

[Ridgerunner665]

I hear and understand both sides of this as far as states rights vs federal jurisdiction goes...

But it sure would be nice to get national reciprocity... I'm a truck driver, I have no say in where I go, if the load goes to NY I have to take it there.

I'd be satisfied with a revision of 18 US code 926a... One that was known, clearly written, and enforced without having to worry about being the example some leo or judge decides to make.

If I can't carry it on me, at least standardize the means by which I may carry it WITH me through the states that won't allow CCW.

The struggle is real for millions of people who travel for work.

Just make it so we can travel in these states, with the gun locked away, and not be struggling with the decision of how to play it in a traffic stop when we're asked if we have any weapons... I respect laws and the people who's job it is to enforce them... I'd prefer to answer that question honestly when asked and know exactly what was going to happen next.

But as it is... You just never know what to expect... You may answer honestly then find yourself in an expensive legal battle because the LEO didn't know, and/or the judge/DA don't care.

A traveler would still have to be aware of magazine capacity and ammo restrictions... But at least we wouldn't have to be unarmed EVERYWHERE in the US, simply because 1 or 2 states don't allow CCW.

926a was meant to do this.... But it just wasn't written clearly enough... It leaves you wide open and bent over if you HAVE to stop overnight or get off the federal highways.

I think this could be done without infringing on the states rights issue.... This is a states rights vs the 2A issue.... And a fight that can be won I think.

If you agree.... Send letters and emails to the NRA, GOA, and anybody else with some clout to push for this.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Aguila, this is where I find myself disagreeing with many of my 2A friends. I don't think that all permitting schemes are unconstitutional. If they were, then I'm sure SCOTUS, whose job it is to settle any and all questions regarding matters pertaining to the Constitution, would have already said so. Again, all the legal arguments can and do leave me scratching my head, so I leave it up to them (SCOTUS). I do think that some states have very restrictive permitting requirements, but I don't have an issue with the concept of requiring a permit to carry.

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time researching these issues. I live in IN, so getting the LTC wasn't very difficult. However, if the State required some sort of training, like is required in KY for example, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I lived in DC, however, I probably wouldn't have had sufficient "reason" to carry, which I think is total BS and a way for states to offer permits that no one can get. That kind of nonsense isn't difficult to see through, and I'm glad the courts have struck that part of the law down.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

Aguila, this is where I find myself disagreeing with many of my 2A friends. I don't think that all permitting schemes are unconstitutional. If they were, then I'm sure SCOTUS, whose job it is to settle any and all questions regarding matters pertaining to the Constitution, would have already said so. Again, all the legal arguments can and do leave me scratching my head, so I leave it up to them (SCOTUS). I do think that some states have very restrictive permitting requirements, but I don't have an issue with the concept of requiring a permit to carry.

What makes you think that if something is unconstitutional, that the SCOTUS already would have said so? The SCOTUS was only 5-4 in saying that D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional. The lower courts have upheld numerous unconstitutional gun control laws. Permitting schemes can well be unconstitutional but yet something the courts would uphold.

[ShootistPRS]

It has been determined by the supreme court that the second amendment is a personal right. It has also determined that it affects both the federal government and the states. In Miller it was stated that the second amendment affected the kinds of weapons used by the infantry in war time.

Yet we can't simply own automatic weapons, grenades or explosive rounds, even if we build them ourselves. It is reserved for the wealthy. It has been stated that law abiding citizens should be able to bear arms in public places yet not in "federal" buildings. In California you can't carry openly unless you are hunting or involved in other outdoor sports. You also can't carry concealed unless the police determine you have a substantial reason to do so. Self defense is not considered a valid reason.

How does that not infringe on the 2nd amendment? How's it even considered lawful?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

Aguila, this is where I find myself disagreeing with many of my 2A friends. I don't think that all permitting schemes are unconstitutional. If they were, then I'm sure SCOTUS, whose job it is to settle any and all questions regarding matters pertaining to the Constitution, would have already said so.

Look how long it took the SCOTUS to finally say that the RKBA is an individual right ... and then that the 2A constrains the states as well as the federal government. The Supreme Court doesn't just toss out pronouncements -- they decide cases that are brought before them. That's why there's so much confusion (and downright obfuscation) as a result of Heller. The question in Heller was not whether the 2A guaranteed an individual right, the question was whether or not Dick Heller had a right to keep a loaded and functional firearm in his home, for self defense. So THAT was the question the SCOTUS answered. In the process of doing so, they did say that the RKBA is an individual right. But they stopped there. That's the problem (as I wrote above) with Justice Scalia's statement about other, "presumptively lawful" regulations. The anti-gun folks portray that as the SCOTUS saying that all existing anti-gun regulations are constitutional. That's NOT what he said. He said "presumptively."

What does that mean? Basically, it means "We're not looking at any of these other regulations today, so for the moment we'll 'presume' that they're lawful, and the courts can look at them down the road when the time is appropriate." It's like the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that every murderer is innocent -- it only means he is presumed to be innocent until he has had his day in court and has been found guilty.

Likewise, all those other anti-gun regulations are presumed to be lawful until they have their day in court, at which time they may be found to be lawful under the Constitution, or they may be found to be in violation of the Constitution. But even anti-gun judges who should know better (and probably DO know better) are taking the approach that they don't have to examine the constitutionality of existing anti-gun regulations because the SCOTUS has already said they're A-Okay.

It's a lie.

Cut to the chase: The 2A says the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Do you know what the word "infringe" means? Again as I wrote above, if anyone reads the 2A honestly and objectively, ALL gun regulations are unconstitutional because the Constitution itself (the 2A is a part of the Constitution, after all) says that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." If it can't be infringed, then it can't be regulated, because regulation is -- by definition -- infringement.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Well, here's the thing, Aguila. You're looking at this from the perspective of having already made up your mind on exactly what the framers intended. I haven't gotten there yet. I've only been interested in guns for about a year and half, so I'm still weighing all the arguments as I come across them. For now, I'm more in the middle on many of these 2A issues. I have questions I've wanted to ask, but it's very difficult to find purely objective answers, particularly on sites like this one. So, while I appreciate your effort, the things you are saying aren't purely objective. I want to learn, and want to know why it is that you feel the way you (and others who agree with you) do, but it gets frustrating and goes back to something I pointed out on another thread--I feel as if I'm being pressured to go along with anything and everything guns just because someone says I should. I don't feel as if I should have to agree with every pro-gun argument just because the 2A exists. For now I don't view the 2A as a blanket endorsement for everything gun owners want. I'm fine with restrictions that I find to be reasonable. I know it puts me in the minority on this site, but I don't know how to be anything other than honest about how I see things. There's more that I agree with you on, collectively speaking, than I did a year ago. A year ago if someone would have asked me if I thought it was good idea for there to be a law that said a carry permit from one state would have to be honored in all the states, I would have said no. Now I think it's a good idea. But I also see merit in Feinstein's point about different training requirements and them not wanting what they consider to be untrained people with guns in their state (and I cannot stand DF). See what I mean? I'm in the middle.

[jdc1244]

I don't view the 2A as a blanket endorsement for everything gun owners want.

And neither does the Supreme Court – the only opinion that matters.

…all those other anti-gun regulations are presumed to be lawful until they have their day in court, at which time they may be found to be lawful under the Constitution, or they may be found to be in violation of the Constitution. But even anti-gun judges who should know better (and probably DO know better) are taking the approach that they don't have to examine the constitutionality of existing anti-gun regulations because the SCOTUS has already said they're A-Okay.

It's a lie.

It’s not a ‘lie’ – the doctrine of presumed constitutionality is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute. (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000))

The doctrine represents a fundamental tenet of separation of powers, that the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives should be acknowledged and respected by the courts – where it is not the role of the judiciary to legislate from the bench, or to pursue an activist agenda contrary to the will of the people.

Rarely should the will of the people be overturned by the courts, and only when the abundance of the facts, evidence, and case law justifies doing so.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving; in the coming decades that jurisprudence will become comprehensive case law affording lawmakers a clear understanding as to what firearm regulatory measures comport with the Second Amendment and what measures do not.

[jdc1244]

As for the thread topic:

Once again perfectly appropriate legislation will fail to be come law the consequence of ignorance and misinformation – much of it coming from gun owners.

Many gun owners have incorrectly opined that national reciprocity is a states’ rights issue, or that it involves Federal regulation or oversight, when in fact neither is true.

[ShootistPRS]

If you want to understand what the second amendment is meant to protect I suggest you read the early history of the United States. That would include the Federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. Both maintain that free people have the right to keep and bear arms. They have the right to defend themselves and their property. They have the right to shed a tyrannical government that serves to dominate them.
The first battle was fought over the British confiscation of powder and guns. There were many reasons, just read the Declaration of independence, but the trigger for that first battle was the British taking powder and guns from the community stores.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Just a few quotes and there are hundreds of them.

[cookie5]

"we" keep reelecting the same politicians ,,some for life. "we" as a collective .

[44 AMP]

It's a lie.

It’s not a ‘lie’ – the doctrine of presumed constitutionality is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute. (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000))

I believe there are two different things being discussed here. I think the lie referred to is different from the principle of presumed constitutionality.

It is a subtle, but important, difference.

Once again perfectly appropriate legislation will fail to be come law the consequence of ignorance and misinformation

is this a reference to something specific, or just a general observation??

Many gun owners have incorrectly opined that national reciprocity is a states’ rights issue, or that it involves Federal regulation or oversight, when in fact neither is true.

Could you explain how it is NOT a matter of states rights???

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

Well, here's the thing, Aguila. You're looking at this from the perspective of having already made up your mind on exactly what the framers intended. I haven't gotten there yet. I've only been interested in guns for about a year and half, so I'm still weighing all the arguments as I come across them. For now, I'm more in the middle on many of these 2A issues. I have questions I've wanted to ask, but it's very difficult to find purely objective answers, particularly on sites like this one. So, while I appreciate your effort, the things you are saying aren't purely objective.

Respectfully, everything I wrote IS objective. You don't see it as such because you're new toi the game. I'm well into my 70s, I'm a Vietnam veteran, I studied expository writing in college and I've had numerous articles published in technical, construction-related magazines, my many-times-great grandfather was a Supreme Court justice, and I've made it my business to read up on the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular. The more you syudy this, the more you'll find that supports exactly what I've written ... with one exception.

Very few people take as hard a line as I do regarding "regulation = infringement." I know Frank Ettin disagrees with me on that, but I've explained exactly why I differ with his lawyerly perspective. Words have meaning. Many of the Founders were lawyers, and those who weren't lawyers were generally learned men. They chose their words carefully. Do your homework and you'll find articles setting forth some of the alternate language proposed, and the debates over the language. Read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist papers.

If you disagree with my hypothesis -- what do YOU think "shall not be infringed" means?

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

For now I don't view the 2A as a blanket endorsement for everything gun owners want. I'm fine with restrictions that I find to be reasonable.

But the word "reasonable" does not appear in the Second Amendment. It does appear in the Fourth Amendment, as I wrote a few posts above, which tells us that the Founders knew the word and were willing to use it when and where they thought it was appropriate. But they did NOT use it in the 2A. They did not say that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed." They issued a blanket prohibition on regulating (infringing) the right to keep and bear arms.

The problem with "I'm fine with restrictions that I find to be reasonable" is that the U.S. has approximately 247,813,910 adults living in it. If you're entitled to your opinion of what restrictions are "reasonable," then so is every one of the 247,813,909 other adults in the U.S. entitled to his or her opinion. Some will favor less restrictive regulations that what you find "reasonable," and some will favor more restriction. Where do you draw the line?

An objective reading of the 2A makes it simple -- erase the line. Regulation = infringement, and the 2A does not allow for infringement.

If you think about it, just allowing us to own and carry guns doesn't make the world a more dangerous place. There would still be laws against making loud noises late at night, against shooting other people (except in self-defense), against murder, against destruction of property, against armed robbery, and against a whole bunch of things that we don't want people doing with guns. Those laws are appropriate, because they regulate the activity, not the implement.

Look at Las Vegas. The shooter was, from a firearms law perspective, squeaky clean. All his guns were apparently purchased legally, and he passed multiple background checks. Yet if you analyze the event, you can probably itemize a list of broken laws as long as your arm -- none of them that inherently infringe on the 2A.That's the problem. The anti-gun people keep passing new laws after every mass shooting, and then along comes another mass shooting that all those previous laws wouldn't have stopped. So their answer, rather than to look for some other way to prevent (or, at least, to alleviate) mass shootings is to pile on yet another useless anti-gun law that won't do anything.

What's "reasonable?" I have carry permits from a number of states. My home state permit required that I take an 8-hour firearms safety course and pass a live fire exercise, before I could even apply. THEN I underwent a background check. I also have a license to carry from Pennsylvania, which doesn't require any training whatsoever. Compare gun safety statistics (or gun crime statistics, for that matter) between Pennsylvania and my home state, or between Pennsylvania and your home state, and I think you'll find that either Pennsylvania is safer, or at least is not less safe to any degree of statistical significance. Knowing that, what's the logical basis for insisting on training before issuing a permit? If required training doesn't produce statistically significant improvements in safety, then it's useless.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

It’s not a ‘lie’ – the doctrine of presumed constitutionality is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute. (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000))

It's not the doctrine of presumed constitutionality that's a lie -- it's the post-Heller lower courts declining to review the constitutionality of anti--gun regulations because they claim the SCOTUS has already declared them constitutional in Heller. THAT's the lie. What Justice Scalie wrote is exactly the principle of presumed constitutionality -- hence his comment that existing gun laws are "presumptively" lawful.

But ... by recognizing them as "presumptively" lawful, what was he saying? Not that they ARE lawful, but that they are "presumed" to be lawful ... until such time as each has been tested in court, on its own merits. But the history of many post-Heller gun law cases shows us that the judges are NOT scrutinizing the laws for constitutionality -- they are often citing Heller as an excuse NOT TO scrutinize, claiming that the matter was already decided in Heller and that all existing gun laws are lawful.

THAT's the lie.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Aguila, let me say that I think it's pretty neat that one of your greats was a Supreme Court justice. Not very many people can say that. That is cool!

With that said, I can tell you that I may be new to the issues surrounding the 2A, but I'm not new to having discussions with people who are trying to win me over to their point of view. I'm not faulting you for that. In fact, a Bible verse came to mind in our discussion where a fella Paul was trying to convert says to him something to the effect of "Thou almost persuadest me." I'm a hard sale because I'm more prone to finding things out for myself than to take others' word. The Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers is something I've seen mentioned a few times now, so I will take your suggestion that I read them to heart.

The fact that what I find to be reasonable can differ from what others think is reasonable is the reason why we have a Supreme Court in the first place. Their job is to decide what fits and what doesn't fit with the Constitution. That's how our founding fathers set this whole thing up, right?. The Constitution itself grants SCOTUS the final say. So, I don't find it a stretch at all to say that the Constitution, and all its amendments, mean what the Supreme Court says they mean, even if that means the Court changes its mind from time to time.

I don't see training requirements as a means to increase safety. I see them more as creating a baseline knowledge or skill set prior to the issuance of a permit. I mean, I don't know if that's why states have them or not, but it seems to me to at least make some sense. State A says, "Ok. We're going to pass a law that says State A has no problem with its citizens carrying firearms out in public so long as those who do have demonstrated that they have this amount of knowledge or this particular skill set." You find that to be an infringement. I find it to be reasonable. If SCOTUS steps in and says the law is an infringement, then it gets struck down. If SCOTUS steps in and says the law is reasonable, then it stays in place. Well, technically, it either gets struck down or affirmed in the lower courts first, but you get my point. Either way, what they say is final unless they change their mind.

At any rate, I have really enjoyed this discussion. You are someone I have added to my "reasonable person to discuss these things with" category. Even if we disagree, I find you to be one of the good guys. Thank you for taking the time to share what you've learned with me without talking down to me. I really appreciate it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

The fact that what I find to be reasonable can differ from what others think is reasonable is the reason why we have a Supreme Court in the first place. Their job is to decide what fits and what doesn't fit with the Constitution. That's how our founding fathers set this whole thing up, right?. The Constitution itself grants SCOTUS the final say. So, I don't find it a stretch at all to say that the Constitution, and all its amendments, mean what the Supreme Court says they mean, even if that means the Court changes its mind from time to time.

Indeed, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means -- once a particular question gets to that level. Before that, it means whatever the district courts or the appellate courts say it means. But that's not saying that the Supreme Court -- or the courts in general -- should get to decide when every law is reasonable. Remember, the 2A does not use the word "reasonable," but it DOES say that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." "Reasonable" is a slippery slope, as in "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's going to be for dinner." One man's "reasonable" is another man's "onerous restriction." The Founders knew this. They thought they had forestalled that with respect to the 2A by making a blanket prohibition against regulating the keeping and bearing of arms. They failed to foresee the degree to which future courts would prostitute themselves by ignoring the plain language of the Constitution in order to promote their own agendas.

First, remember that depending on the purview and impact of a law, there are (in general) three levels of scrutiny. Rather than have me mangle the definitions, you can look those up for yourself. Laws affecting fundamental civil rights are supposed to be subject to "strict" scrutiny. When it comes to 2A cases, though, especially post-Heller, many district and appellate courts are applying, at least, "intermediate" scrutiny or even something less than that. Which is fundamentally wrong, and they know it, so they try to make their intermediate (or less) scrutiny masquerade as strict scrutiny. One of their tricks in "interest balancing," which (as I understand it) has no place under strict scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Son)fScubaDiver

I don't see training requirements as a means to increase safety. I see them more as creating a baseline knowledge or skill set prior to the issuance of a permit. I mean, I don't know if that's why states have them or not, but it seems to me to at least make some sense. State A says, "Ok. We're going to pass a law that says State A has no problem with its citizens carrying firearms out in public so long as those who do have demonstrated that they have this amount of knowledge or this particular skill set." You find that to be an infringement. I find it to be reasonable. If SCOTUS steps in and says the law is an infringement, then it gets struck down. If SCOTUS steps in and says the law is reasonable, then it stays in place. Well, technically, it either gets struck down or affirmed in the lower courts first, but you get my point. Either way, what they say is final unless they change their mind.

Safety is the only basis on which a state government can justify training requirements. The concept of licensing the carry of firearms falls under what is known as the "police power" of the state. The underlying basis of the concept of police power is public safety. Read the licensing/permitting requirements in the laws of most states who have such and I think you'll find the word "safety" or something close thereto (perhaps "competance") in there. If you start at www.handgunlaw.us you can jump to any state, find their permitting requirements, and within that you'll usually find links to the statutes. My state's statute says

"a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association,

One of the non-resident permits I have is Florida. The Florida requirements can be found here: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divi...-Documentation

To qualify for a concealed weapon license, Florida law requires you to submit proof of competency with a firearm. A copy of a Certificate of Completion or similar document from any of the following courses or classes is acceptable:

• Any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency in another state;
• Any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
• Any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, using instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
• Any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
• Any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified instructor or by an instructor certified by the National Rifle Association.

If the underlying premise for requiring training is safety, or even skill, statistics prove the effort is a dismal failure. I previously mentioned Pennsylvania, which issues carry licenses with no requirement for training. Pennsylvania is adjacent to New York and Ohio. NY theoretically has carry permits, but except for a few counties they are generally difficult to obtain and often limited to transportation to and from a shooting range. Ohio, as of about ten years ago, requires carry permits but is basically shall issue. Ohio reqires training. Dig up the statistics from PA, NY, and OH and see if either NY (with its limited access to permits) or OH (with its training requirement) is statistically safer than PA. I think you'll find that they are not. And if the tight control on permits ar the training requirement don't result in statistically significant improvements in safety, then ... what's the point?

Someone else mentioned a few quotes from the time of the Bill of Rights to support the view that the intention of the Founders was for all of us to have the right to carry everything available. He left out one that the anti-gun folks hate, because it pretty much says we should all be allowed to carry M16s and own Ma Deuces. The quote is from Tench Coxe, an influential Pennsylvania statesman of the time:

Originally Posted by Tench Coxe

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
...
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

Also:

Originally Posted by Tench Coxe

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

The second quote is from "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1. As quoted in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, A friend of James Madison, writing in support of the Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights. In other words, it speaks directly to the Second Amendment and its purpose.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Haven't posted in awhile. However, I found this thread interesting. I rarely agree with zukiphile on much but here I do. I have never warmed to the idea of national reciprocity even though I wish all states would recognize my permit. I guess I have issues with Fed getting into the act as do others. Reciprocity is harder being done state by state but stronger IMHO.

[44 AMP]

We are discussing two things that I think are different, though obviously related.

First is the ideological level, the "pure" level of concepts and what we think they should be. Second is the "dirty" (or, if you prefer, "confused") level of our reality as it exists today, and what we can do about it.

The system we have, and the system the Founders set up are two different things in many, many ways. When we discuss "shall not be infringed" etc., it's on the ideological level, and yes, many of us would love it if that simple, clear phrase was still the way the law of the land operated. But, its not the way things work today.

Whatever system people grow up under tends to be what those people consider, right, and proper. Many will stubbornly hold on to that view, even when shown otherwise.

Not only do some states not recognize other state's weapons permits, some places don't recognize their own state's permits!! New York State issued permits are NOT valid in New York City!!

And this has been the law there, for generations.

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a credible argument that National Reciprocity isn't a states rights issue. Simply put, states have the right to decide for themselves what their laws are. There are exceptions, of course, and sadly for the people who want national carry, firearms law is one of the exceptions. And that's the way it is, until a court with the authority to do so, rules otherwise.

For those who think the Supreme Court has the infallible wisdom to correct the matter, do remember that while political viewpoints aren't supposed to matter to the high court, every justice on that court is a political appointee.

Some of them rise beyond politics and rule on the law, some do not.

Remember also that the Supreme Court held slavery to be legal and Constitutional for many, many years, until it did not.

No free citizen is forced by law to live, work, or even visit states that have restrictive gun laws. And while the choice might not be easy, convenient, affordable, or even practical, its still YOUR choice.

[Al Norris]

Hey TG, nice to see you again.

Drivers Licensing is a perfect example of the States agreeing to reciprocity. It is also a great example of the Feds attempting to seize control of and regulate the right to travel.

When they (the feds) found that they couldn't, they did the next best thing. Using the commerce clause, they made sure that anyone who traveled in a vehicle for pay, and particularly crossed state lines, fell under the regulations promulgated by the Dept. of Transportation. After a bit of time, it expanded to anyone who traveled commercially.

Air travel? Check. Commerce clause allowed the Feds complete control.

National ID? Check. Commerce clause allows for the Real ID Act.

And the latest expansion of the commerce clause? National Health Care.

It matters not if any of the above are good things. What it illustrates is that once the feds have garnered a power (or ceded a power by the states), they always go for more.

And now, some of you folks want the Feds involved in Reciprocity of firearm licensing? Just based upon past exercises of federal power, do you honestly think they will limit this to states carry licenses? You are only fooling yourself.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

For those who think the Supreme Court has the infallible wisdom to correct the matter, do remember that while political viewpoints aren't supposed to matter to the high court, every justice on that court is a political appointee.

Some of them rise beyond politics and rule on the law, some do not.

Remember also that the Supreme Court held slavery to be legal and Constitutional for many, many years, until it did not.

Closer to the firearms regulation issue, the Miller decision held that a short barreled shotgun was properly subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 because it wasn't a weapon with a military purpose:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

So here the SCOTUS both ignored the widespread use of shotguns in the trench warfare of WW1, and they also tied the RKBA to the militia -- in essence taking a "collective right" approach to the 2A. [An interesting side note is that the Massachusetts state constitution also treats the RKBA as a collective right -- for defense of the state -- whereas the constitutions of most of the other thirteen original, founding states treats it as an individual right.]

From Miller up until Heller, the gun control advocates argued consistently that the RKBA was only a collective right, tied to membership in the Militia (which they argued had been supplanted by the National Guard), and so (they claimed) there was NO individual right to keep or to bear arms. And then along came Heller which turned the world upside down by saying that, yes, the RKBA is an individual right, and oh-by-the-way that right is NOT dependent on service in a militia.

Talk about sea changes and paradigm shifts! With their major argument officially blown out of the water, the anti-gun forces are now resorting to tricks like claiming that "the only right" Heller affirmed is a right to "keep" a firearm in the home, not a right to carry ("bear") one on the street. Of course, this argument is a linguistic non-starter, because the 2A refers to one, singular "right," a right (singular) to keep and bear arms. They want to bifurcate it into a right to "keep" arms (in the home only, mind you), and then a second right -- which they argue has not been affirmed by the SCOTUS -- to "bear" arms outside of the home.

I keep saying that words have meaning. The Heller decision spends much of its verbiage on exploring what certain words meant to the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So the SCOTUS apparently thinks words have meaning. If we accept that words have meaning, it isn't a great leap to deduce that the use of the word "right" in its singular form means that the 2A addresses only ONE right, and that is a two-part right: it is a right both to "keep" arms and to "bear" arms. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and does verbal violence to the English language.

[JERRYS.]

does anyone really want the federal government involved in your carry right? petition your state reps for reciprocity with other states.

[FITASC]

^^^^^^^ Only took 99 posts to say something that makes sense...........