PDA

View Full Version : Wayne LaPierre endorses nationwide carry.


gobler
02-10-2011, 12:32 PM
I'm watching the CPAC conference at the NRA web site. He just challenged congress for a national carry law to be passed. So it looks like the NRA is now fully behind this which does increase the chances.

J.D.Allen
02-10-2011, 1:14 PM
Is he pushing for a national CCW or national reciprocity?

Either way what remains to be seen is if the NRA will put the full weight of their apparently immense lobbying power behind it...

dustoff31
02-10-2011, 1:24 PM
Either way what remains to be seen is if the NRA will put the full weight of their apparently immense lobbying power behind it...

True, but even more important is making sure that any such legislation gets attached to a bill that must pass and that Obama can't veto.

Politicians can (and do) say anything when the pressure is on, then actually do the opposite.

gobler
02-10-2011, 1:30 PM
Paraphrasing but he basically said "It's about time that congress gets behind every law abiding person in this country to be able to carry any where they chose." He also threw down the gauntlet of doing away with GFZ. :D He tore apart the media on how they cover tragic shootings.

gunsmith
02-10-2011, 1:34 PM
hopefully I can carry in SF on my NV ccw this year.
That would pressure CA to change, people from other states carrying where CA citizens cant

MP301
02-10-2011, 1:34 PM
Nice. My dues at work on something I care about.

OleCuss
02-10-2011, 1:37 PM
This is, IMHO, a significant development. Significantly increases the probability of getting something like the Thune Amendment and then maybe legislation which addresses "Shall Issue" or similar.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 1:55 PM
hopefully I can carry in SF on my NV ccw this year.
That would pressure CA to change, people from other states carrying where CA citizens cant

Yep, it would basically mean that Peterson v. "Insert Hapless Sheriff's Name Here" would be unnecessary. Good for all of us! :)

BlindRacer
02-10-2011, 1:59 PM
Exciting! :lurk5:

Dr Rockso
02-10-2011, 2:01 PM
Sounds like it's about time for me to upgrade my membership.

gobler
02-10-2011, 2:06 PM
I'll post the link of the video when they put it up. Or you could go to nra.org and check the archives.

Wherryj
02-10-2011, 2:09 PM
hopefully I can carry in SF on my NV ccw this year.
That would pressure CA to change, people from other states carrying where CA citizens cant

Well, the fact that people travel to SF on a daily basis, yet show no signs of being ground down by the nanny state hasn't made them uncomforatable up to this point. Why would it pressure them that someone enjoyed another basic human freedom?

safewaysecurity
02-10-2011, 2:10 PM
I feel like they are going to push the Thune Amendment HARD this year around early March or so. And if the NRA thinks it will have the votes they may include something so that may issue states can carry with a permit from a shall issue or something but I doubt it. They will probably just do national reciprocity with the exception of Wisconsin and Illinois ( unless they change their law )

dantodd
02-10-2011, 2:18 PM
I can't imagine a national ccw permit being possible. The only way that would possibly work would be either "national reciprocity" or national Constitutional Carry law. A nationwide permitting system would just never work, at least with state permitting systems we have DL bureaus and law enforcement nationwide to deal with the paperwork etc.

J.D.Allen
02-10-2011, 2:34 PM
hopefully I can carry in SF on my NV ccw this year.
That would pressure CA to change, people from other states carrying where CA citizens cant

I also hope u can carry in SF this year. Because it would mean I can carry in SD and El Centro with my AZ permit.:43:

Legasat
02-10-2011, 2:40 PM
This is certainly positive, but whether or not it will actually happen, that's another story...

Peter W Bush
02-10-2011, 2:46 PM
This is GREAT news! While I don't expect Constitutional carry in California, the system we have NEEDS to be changed.

CalBear
02-10-2011, 2:59 PM
I'm glad I recently got a life membership. Very happy with this.

NSR500
02-10-2011, 3:03 PM
I would love for this to go through so I can carry in California on a Texas CHL.

gobler
02-10-2011, 3:08 PM
Found a site with a good recap of his speech. Part of which is what I posted.

Our security is in our own hands and is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is time for real change. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. We need more freedom and a lot less government.

Our second amendment rights should be expanded not contracted. Calling on Congress to grant all honest Americans the right to carry a gun. It is time for a national concealed carry gun. 7 million people now legally carry concealed guns.

source ----> http://texasgopvote.com/cpac-2011/cpac-2011-nras-wayne-lapierre-addresses-cpac-less-government-more-freedom-002484

Sorry, I don't know how to make url's smaller

Which Way Out
02-10-2011, 3:11 PM
To insure it ever gets passed in Gov. it first must have a union and a bureaucracy to go with it. At least all the others do. IMHO

gunsmith
02-10-2011, 3:22 PM
Well, the fact that people travel to SF on a daily basis, yet show no signs of being ground down by the nanny state hasn't made them uncomforatable up to this point. Why would it pressure them that someone enjoyed another basic human freedom?

as a long time resident of SF I am still reeling from being ground up by the constant fines and fees imposed by an out of control city gov't, I love SF but the city gov't is a vile collection of creeps that make Mussolini proud.

"uncomforatable" uncomfortable? firefox spell check rules!!!

N6ATF
02-10-2011, 3:23 PM
The only bureaucracy needed is requiring the existing FBI Civil Rights Division to arrest all the infringers and the AG to prosecute them, or they get defunded. With Eric Holder The Infringer as the AG, forget it. :rolleyes:

voiceofreason
02-10-2011, 3:36 PM
Yep, it would basically mean that Peterson v. "Insert Hapless Sheriff's Name Here" would be unnecessary. Good for all of us! :)

Funny! :rofl2:

Southwest Chuck
02-10-2011, 3:40 PM
Sorry, I don't know how to make url's smaller

When you paste the link into your text box, part of it will be highlighted. Simply type in your own title at that point and it will replace the highlighted part and will be posted as the link title. Easy!

15thaf5thbw
02-10-2011, 3:43 PM
I can't imagine a national ccw permit being possible. The only way that would possibly work would be either "national reciprocity" or national Constitutional Carry law. A nationwide permitting system would just never work, at least with state permitting systems we have DL bureaus and law enforcement nationwide to deal with the paperwork etc.

Well, I think one implementation model would work, namely ...

A Federal, probably Constitutional, law that would set forth the construct for estbalishing and managing CCWs in each and EVERY state. But the States would still "administer" the process, adopting Federal rules (law) and probably utilizing some new, centralized, "registry" database/system.

I think in a correctly administered and proper form "national CCW" would be GREAT. But I think that a model for mandatory state-to-state reciprocity utilizing the current state county-Sheriff administration process would be better than a National (Federal) CCW "license" program.

In either case I believe there is an inherent RISK, and please, those that know better correct me where I am wrong, that the more you centralize the process of "adminstration of citizen's rights" the greater the probability that at some point it will be MUCH EASIER for politicians with insidious intent to subvert that "process" and bend it for their politcal gain; which in effect would be to probably introduce the insane, illogical "restrictions" on gun-rights we have seen to date.

If you keep the process as it is today, opponents of the overall process of granting CCW licenses to "qualifying citizens" (as if being a "citizen" is not sufficient) have 50 different venues in which these battles must be fought. It seems to me that takes a lot more resources to accomplish and hence is much harder to do. If it is all centralized opponents now only have one place they need attack and can focus resources.

At least this is how it seems to me.

Anybody agree?

ocspeedracer
02-10-2011, 3:45 PM
I say the feds should adopt the AZ constitutional carry for all. If they did that I'd pay off my NRA membership and donate $1000.

Not much, but a lot for me.

Blackhawk556
02-10-2011, 3:47 PM
last time we got 57 or 58 votes in the senate for national reciprocity. that was huge because even then the dems controlled the senate. Some of them were fake votes, but now that the dems have a smaller lead in the senate, this might have a better chance of passing.
the only question is when will this be introduced

Wildeman_13
02-10-2011, 3:50 PM
I think in a correctly administered and proper form "national CCW" would be GREAT. But I think that a model for mandatory state-to-state reciprocity utilizing the current state county-Sheriff administration process would be better than a National (Federal) CCW "license" program.
I think if anything they need to follow something along lines of how Arizona handles CCW permits. It is all done at the State level. There is no going to your local Sheriff to file paperwork. You take your class, you get your finger prints done, you fill out the app and mail it all into the State DOJ who handles it. Granted the last thing we need here is to add to the bloated CA gov or put things into the hands of our DOJ, but the simplicity of it makes sense. Once location for everyone to send things to, one location for everyone to contact, no need to train up each and every department out there to handle these requests.


Yeah.. I know. Never happen this way in CA. ;)

OleCuss
02-10-2011, 3:53 PM
I'm pretty sure the speech was carefully crafted, and as I read it a bit more I don't think that he's calling for nationwide reciprocity. He also didn't call for a nationwide licensing program.

That means that he may be calling for nationwide concealed carry without licensing. I view this as primarily a bargaining position to get the Thune Amendment - and I do think that the most likely vehicle for that will be raising the national debt ceiling.

It should be entertaining to watch. I really don't know how the politics will play out, but if I were a very conservative Republican I'd push really hard to get "constitutional carry" attached to the bill to raise the debt ceiling (along with spending reduction measures). That would put the Democrats in the position where they will have to infuriate their base either by refusing to increase the debt ceiling or by voting for "constitutional carry". A winner for the Republicans either way - and I hope they see it that way as well.

safewaysecurity
02-10-2011, 4:02 PM
You can watch his whole speech here.

http://video.cpac.org/video/show/wayne-lapierre-2011

The best part was when he played the video of the woman and her desperate 9-1-1 call and when the call ended he said " That's who we fight for " and I got goosebumps. I know it's cheesy but it got the right response.

yellowfin
02-10-2011, 4:09 PM
This is certainly positive, but whether or not it will actually happen, that's another story...Quite true, I'm sick of hearing "Not yet", "We're trying", "That's hard and will take time", "Baby steps" etc. I'd starve if that's what I told people when asking for results from what I do for a living.

thrumper
02-10-2011, 4:34 PM
last time we got 57 or 58 votes in the senate for national reciprocity. that was huge because even then the dems controlled the senate. Some of them were fake votes, but now that the dems have a smaller lead in the senate, this might have a better chance of passing.
the only question is when will this be introduced

I think it will be introduced in about two weeks!

GWbiker
02-10-2011, 4:37 PM
I also hope u can carry in SF this year. Because it would mean I can carry in SD and El Centro with my AZ permit.:43:

Oh, stop day dreaming.....:D

Window_Seat
02-10-2011, 5:07 PM
Yep, it would basically mean that Peterson v. "Insert Hapless Sheriff's Name Here" would be unnecessary. Good for all of us! :)
:rofl:

This is why I am a firm believer in backing & supporting the NRA in their efforts. While one or few may disagree with some of their ways, it's for the far better of this nation. I've said before that if not for the NRA, Hurricane Katrina confiscation wouldn't have happened... because totalitarian confiscation would have happened LONG BEFORE.

If we could one day get every member of the NRA, SAF, CGF/N, CRPA, GOA, JPFO, PPoSF, and other good orgs working together, it would be like the heaviest super speedway train rolling full bore down a 25% grade, and the anti's would be like a tiny mouse trying to stop that train.

We need to keep up the good work.

ETA:
I think it will be introduced in about two weeks!

I talked with Sen. Thune's office last month (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5598261), and the staff said that he would introduce the Thune Amendment sometime in March.

Erik.

stix213
02-10-2011, 5:18 PM
Personally I'm hoping for national CCW licensing rather than reciprocity. I'd be fine sending $80 or whatever to the feds for a 5 year license. It would also help out with the national deficit, so could be promoted as a cash cow (at my made up $80 fee, assuming those 7,000,000 CCWers get a national license, that's over a half billion dollars of income to the feds when they are looking for more income sources - yeah paying for a right is BS but at least its going toward something I believe in)

I think national constitutional carry leaves too many open ends such as GFSZ's that will be difficult to close both nationally and at the state level.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 5:22 PM
:rofl:

Thanks, Erik.

This is why I am a firm believer in backing & supporting the NRA in their efforts. While one or few may disagree with some of their ways, it's for the far better of this nation. I've said before that if not for the NRA, Hurricane Katrina confiscation wouldn't have happened... because totalitarian confiscation would have happened LONG BEFORE.

If we could one day get every member of the NRA, SAF, CGF/N, CRPA, GOA, JPFO, PPoSF, and other good orgs working together, it would be like the heaviest super speedway train rolling full bore down a 25% grade, and the anti's would be like a tiny mouse trying to stop that train.

We need to keep up the good work.

ETA:


I talked with Sen. Thune's office last month (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5598261), and the staff said that he would introduce the Thune Amendment sometime in March.

Erik.

Sweet. Thune Amendment means he's going to introduce it to a piece of legislation. Yay.

Window_Seat
02-10-2011, 5:32 PM
Personally I'm hoping for national CCW licensing rather than reciprocity. I'd be fine sending $80 or whatever to the feds for a 5 year license. It would also help out with the national deficit, so could be promoted as a cash cow (at my made up $80 fee, assuming those 7,000,000 CCWers get a national license, that's over a half billion dollars of income to the feds when they are looking for more income sources - yeah paying for a right is BS but at least its going toward something I believe in)

I think national constitutional carry leaves too many open ends such as GFSZ's that will be difficult to close both nationally and at the state level.



I've said before that any license OOS or not should be valid in all 50, but looking at that, it would cause big problems in the sense that a state that charges $10 for a license would be flooded with applicants, while states like FL would have virtually no business at all. It's a C22, but it could be solved if there was something in the Congress that called for every state to issue to their own residents on a SI/VSI basis. I asked Thune about this (actually, his staff member Adrian), and she said "one step at a time".

I say "each time it loses, we add more, and it's lost how many times"? This would be a good opportunity to shove another "be careful what you wish for" pies in the faces of the lib's.

Erik.

Havoc70
02-10-2011, 5:51 PM
That 911 audio gave me chills. How people don't understand that there is evil intent do harm and want to disarm honest folks baffles me.

tcd511
02-10-2011, 6:06 PM
It's finally great to see a positive forward push for our rights. I mainly read the 2nd amendment section of the calguns forum and sometimes it just seems like we are dead in the water or you just read about another brainless politician trying to introduce some new legislation to restrict us even more. So........GO NRA!!!!!! Nice to see my membership dues and donations getting to work!!!!

stix213
02-10-2011, 6:15 PM
It's finally great to see a positive forward push for our rights. I mainly read the 2nd amendment section of the calguns forum and sometimes it just seems like we are dead in the water or you just read about another brainless politician trying to introduce some new legislation to restrict us even more. So........GO NRA!!!!!! Nice to see my membership dues and donations getting to work!!!!

Really? I actually pop into the 2A forum everyday thinking "hmmm I wonder what incremental improvement to my gun rights has happened today, lets check" :D Things have really been on a roll lately compared to the 90's for sure

ventipossum
02-10-2011, 6:22 PM
Why did Wayne LaPierre do this?


Because he ROCKS.


^_^




Ventipossum

CCWFacts
02-10-2011, 6:34 PM
I feel like they are going to push the Thune Amendment HARD this year around early March or so.

last time we got 57 or 58 votes in the senate for national reciprocity. that was huge because even then the dems controlled the senate. Some of them were fake votes, but now that the dems have a smaller lead in the senate, this might have a better chance of passing.
the only question is when will this be introduced

March is when they need to raise the debt ceiling. As I've said before, the debt ceiling bill is an absolute must-pass bill. Even the most conservative anti-deficit Republicans will probably end up voting for it.

Yes, some of the 57 Senate votes we had previously were fake votes (ie, they could vote "yes" because they knew it wouldn't pass). But even taking that into account, it will pass this time. I expect national recip. to be the law of the land by the end of April.

Tier One Arms
02-10-2011, 6:53 PM
What is the cheapest state to get a permit in?

Blackhawk556
02-10-2011, 7:20 PM
That 911 audio gave me chills. How people don't understand that there is evil intent do harm and want to disarm honest folks baffles me.

what minute mark can i hear this?
.................................................. ...............................


I have a question, let's say national reciprocity does pass, can't to antis take this all the way to the supreme court and say it violates state powers or something c rap like that?

Blackhawk556
02-10-2011, 7:24 PM
March is when they need to raise the debt ceiling. As I've said before, the debt ceiling bill is an absolute must-pass bill. Even the most conservative anti-deficit Republicans will probably end up voting for it.

Yes, some of the 57 Senate votes we had previously were fake votes (ie, they could vote "yes" because they knew it wouldn't pass). But even taking that into account, it will pass this time. I expect national recip. to be the law of the land by the end of April.


if they can introduce legislation which can pass quickly, we might have a chance of winning.

I don't want to get too excited :D
i thought the roster would be dead by now and look where its at

Havoc70
02-10-2011, 7:34 PM
what minute mark can i hear this?
.................................................. ...............................


I have a question, let's say national reciprocity does pass, can't to antis take this all the way to the supreme court and say it violates state powers or something c rap like that?

It's near the end, I don't know the exact mark. Regarding your last question, you can bet there will be legal challenges.

CalBear
02-10-2011, 7:49 PM
That 911 audio gave me chills. How people don't understand that there is evil intent do harm and want to disarm honest folks baffles me.
That was a really haunting 911 call. Far too many people assuage themselves with a false sense of a security in life. It would not be that hard for a common criminal to bust your door down and shank you to death. Those of us who are armed sleep better at night knowing if the face of evil itself busts down our door at midnight, evil will be greeted by the barrel of a gun, and a bullet of need be.

Wayne LaPierre's speech was awesome from beginning to end. Very much on point and emotionally effective. I am so glad we have such an effective person leading the fight for our 2A rights.

surfinguru
02-10-2011, 7:58 PM
what minute mark can i hear this?


It's at about the 27:00 mark.

Havoc70
02-10-2011, 8:02 PM
That was a really haunting 911 call. Far too many people assuage themselves with a false sense of a security in life. It would not be that hard for a common criminal to bust your door down and shank you to death. Those of us who are armed sleep better at night knowing if the face of evil itself busts down our door at midnight, evil will be greeted by the barrel of a gun, and a bullet of need be.

Wayne LaPierre's speech was awesome from beginning to end. Very much on point and emotionally effective. I am so glad we have such an effective person leading the fight for our 2A rights.

Spot on. The 29 minutes went by really fast, to be honest, well worth listening to. I was watching CNN and on the ticker they actually mentioned his speech.

People who don't get it need to, quickly.

pitchbaby
02-10-2011, 8:06 PM
Sounds like it's about time for me to upgrade my membership.

I'll keep renewing, but spare the upgrade till we see some results on this front.

Tier One Arms
02-10-2011, 9:26 PM
So, where is the cheapest state to get a ccw?

CalBear
02-10-2011, 10:05 PM
There are already some moronic comments over at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/nra-cpac-loughner_n_821542.html

Anyone who cares to comment, please do so.

jonyg
02-10-2011, 10:06 PM
Huzzah! Here's to what will hopefully be a long-delayed milestone in March! CCW the moment I turn 21!

mrdd
02-10-2011, 10:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg_uy9_2a1U

safewaysecurity
02-10-2011, 10:45 PM
Bg_uy9_2a1U

CalBear
02-10-2011, 11:01 PM
There are already some moronic comments over at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/nra-cpac-loughner_n_821542.html

Anyone who cares to comment, please do so.
I'm on a posting streak over there. I've already done about 10 for this article. Calling all Calgunners, backup is requested. :D

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 11:04 PM
It's near the end, I don't know the exact mark. Regarding your last question, you can bet there will be legal challenges.

No there won't.

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 is a similar bill to FOPA. That was not legally challenged. The anti-gun states that may be tempted to challenge Thune will A) Realize that some of their pet federal programs will get jeopardized by an anti-Thune ruling and B) Article IV is clear. Section 5 of the 14th amendment is clear.

CalBear
02-10-2011, 11:14 PM
Section 5 of the 14th amendment is clear.
Darn good point. The Thune Amendment can be justified as enforcement of the equal protection clause by Congress, which is a power granted by Amendment 14, Section 5.

erikdjs
02-10-2011, 11:55 PM
Very moving speech. Too bad anti's lead with emotion and not with logic & data.

gorblimey
02-11-2011, 12:12 AM
The timing is appropriate, since police unions all over the country will soon be forced to to decide between kicking a goodly share of their junior members to the curb and taking paycuts across the board. Oh, what a nail biter! Which of the two terrible, terrilble eventualities shall be chosen? :rolleyes:

dantodd
02-11-2011, 12:15 AM
No there won't.

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 is a similar bill to FOPA. That was not legally challenged. The anti-gun states that may be tempted to challenge Thune will A) Realize that some of their pet federal programs will get jeopardized by an anti-Thune ruling and B) Article IV is clear. Section 5 of the 14th amendment is clear.

Interestingly if Thune is challenged and SCOTUS affirms the constitutionality of the law based on Article IV it will establish CCW "permits" as "public records" which is to say that it is essentially a notice by a person of their intention to carry rather than a "license" or other grant of permission.

wildhawker
02-11-2011, 12:19 AM
So, where is the cheapest state to get a ccw?

To my knowledge, Washington State (I could be wrong) at $55.25/5 years (all inclusive e.g. fingerprint/background check).

Requirements: Concealed pistol license (http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconcealreq.html)
You must meet all of the following requirements to get a concealed pistol license:
Be 21 years of age or older at time of application.
Be a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with permanent resident card or “green card.”
Have no pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.
Have no outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.
Have no court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.
Have no mental health conditions that would prohibit you from having a license.
Have no felony convictions, or adjudications for a felony offense, in this state or elsewhere. “Felony” means any felony offense under the laws of Washington, or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the laws of Washington.
Have no convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another on or after July 1, 1993:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

Where to apply
If you live in the unincorporated area of a county apply at your sheriff’s office.
If you live in an incorporated city within the county, apply at either the city police department or sheriff’s office.
If you aren’t a Washington State resident, apply at any local law enforcement agency in Washington.

Documents you’ll need
You’ll need to bring all of the following:
Picture identification such as a Washington State driver license or identification card. If you don’t have a Washington State driver license or identification card, you must provide proof you have lived in the state for at least the last 90 days.
The $55.25 fee in cash, check, or money order made payable to the law enforcement agency. This fee is non-refundable.
If you’re in the military, your military ID and orders listing your station location.

Background check required
You must be fingerprinted and have a criminal history background check before you can be issued a license. Please see Frequently asked questions (http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconcealfaq.html) for more information about licensing requirements.

Reciprocity for concealed pistol licenses from other states
Washington accepts concealed pistol licenses issued by a number of other states, as long as the handgun is carried in accordance with Washington law. The Washington State Attorney General’s website (http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=7772) provides a list of states that have reciprocity with Washington for concealed pistol licenses.

bigstick61
02-11-2011, 1:54 AM
I am personally very uncomfortable with going the national route. It seems to me to be the wrong way to go and IMO the ends don't justify the means here. This is the exact type of thing that has resulted in the destruction of federalism, increased centralization, decreased State and local power (essentially an attack on the principle of subsidiarity), and the undermining of our Constitution.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for a national permitting system and IMO requiring permits to exercise a right is an infringement upon it. I also think that forcing the States to have a permitting process and directing how they will do it is really a stretch. How about if a State wants no permitting process and just wants to let people exercise their right to bear arms a la Vermont? Would they be forced to have it anyways? I certainly see no constitutional basis for that.

We are winning more and more battles in the several States at that level and some States are even on their own going to a true right to bear arms (no permit required). While there are some recalcitrant States (California among them, which I think can get people to just favour whatever is expeditious regardless of the potential adverse consequences or questionable methods), in the end I think the battle can and will be won at that level and that is how it should be done.

kel-tec-innovations
02-11-2011, 2:04 AM
Great speech

Anchors
02-11-2011, 2:59 AM
I back Federal CCW or Constitutional Carry.
But Federal reciprocity is essentially just as good (or even better, really).

I just signed up with the NRA for two years after debating it for a long time.
I finally realized even if they have done things I don't personally like, they have done more for gun rights than any other group out there.

I'll be looking to contribute to CGF soon too. They just need to make a cool membership sticker first (kidding!)

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 6:26 AM
I am personally very uncomfortable with going the national route. It seems to me to be the wrong way to go and IMO the ends don't justify the means here. This is the exact type of thing that has resulted in the destruction of federalism, increased centralization, decreased State and local power (essentially an attack on the principle of subsidiarity), and the undermining of our Constitution.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for a national permitting system and IMO requiring permits to exercise a right is an infringement upon it. I also think that forcing the States to have a permitting process and directing how they will do it is really a stretch. How about if a State wants no permitting process and just wants to let people exercise their right to bear arms a la Vermont? Would they be forced to have it anyways? I certainly see no constitutional basis for that.

We are winning more and more battles in the several States at that level and some States are even on their own going to a true right to bear arms (no permit required). While there are some recalcitrant States (California among them, which I think can get people to just favour whatever is expeditious regardless of the potential adverse consequences or questionable methods), in the end I think the battle can and will be won at that level and that is how it should be done.

Federal reciprocity would not increase government at the federal level, any more than FOPA did. It's actually the cheapest method because it's essentially free.

J.D.Allen
02-11-2011, 8:27 AM
I am personally very uncomfortable with going the national route. It seems to me to be the wrong way to go and IMO the ends don't justify the means here. This is the exact type of thing that has resulted in the destruction of federalism, increased centralization, decreased State and local power (essentially an attack on the principle of subsidiarity), and the undermining of our Constitution.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for a national permitting system and IMO requiring permits to exercise a right is an infringement upon it. I also think that forcing the States to have a permitting process and directing how they will do it is really a stretch. How about if a State wants no permitting process and just wants to let people exercise their right to bear arms a la Vermont? Would they be forced to have it anyways? I certainly see no constitutional basis for that.

We are winning more and more battles in the several States at that level and some States are even on their own going to a true right to bear arms (no permit required). While there are some recalcitrant States (California among them, which I think can get people to just favour whatever is expeditious regardless of the potential adverse consequences or questionable methods), in the end I think the battle can and will be won at that level and that is how it should be done.

I'm all for states' rights believe me. But not when it involves the states infringing a right that is protected in the federal constitution. This particular issue is one of the few that is rightfully a federal issue. IMHO

Patrick-2
02-11-2011, 8:30 AM
I am concerened that any Federal carry legislation would moot some of our cases before we get to SCOTUS. This would leave shall-issue in the hands of the legislature.

The result is a 'right' that has not been recognized by SCOTUS. Public carry would be a gift of the legislature and a future one will take it away. The problem is that when some future legislature takes it away, we could could have a very different Supreme Court.

I'd rather wait and have the right recognized by SCOTUS. Then a line is drawn in the sand: a fundamental right is recognized that Congress cannot cross (easily).


But even with National Carry we could get there. Hopefully a state will fight it and fight it all the way up. They will argue the 10th and "public safety". Somewhere in there we might be able to get the right recognized. Our lawyers are pretty smart, hopefully they will get to chime in when the time comes. Unfortunatley, it will be the AG who defends this law. We know where he stands. He will not argue for a personal right. He will argue the barest minimum.

The Thune Amendment would work for me as long as it keeps those of us in Maryland and California who are denied permits, out of the system. Then our fights could continue. When we eventually win, we will have national reciprocity in place and waiting for us.

Patrick-2
02-11-2011, 8:38 AM
I am personally very uncomfortable with going the national route. It seems to me to be the wrong way to go and IMO the ends don't justify the means here. This is the exact type of thing that has resulted in the destruction of federalism, increased centralization, decreased State and local power (essentially an attack on the principle of subsidiarity), and the undermining of our Constitution.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for a national permitting system and IMO requiring permits to exercise a right is an infringement upon it. I also think that forcing the States to have a permitting process and directing how they will do it is really a stretch. How about if a State wants no permitting process and just wants to let people exercise their right to bear arms a la Vermont? Would they be forced to have it anyways? I certainly see no constitutional basis for that.

We are winning more and more battles in the several States at that level and some States are even on their own going to a true right to bear arms (no permit required). While there are some recalcitrant States (California among them, which I think can get people to just favour whatever is expeditious regardless of the potential adverse consequences or questionable methods), in the end I think the battle can and will be won at that level and that is how it should be done.

What part of religion does your state get to regulate?

Free speech?

Etc.


You are thinking the old way. Heller/McDonald made the Second Amendment a clear Bill of Rights issue. That means it is federal. Legislation from Congress won't take away any state powers; the Constitution already did that. It just took us 200+ years to recognize it.

The 10th Amendment does not shield state laws regulating religion; why should personal defense be any different?

Any regulation (state or federal) of 2A can be fought in federal court. They have standing now. Likewise, so does Congress. Once an issue is elevated to a fundamental right it becomes a matter of interest for all US people, everywhere. That collective interest is embodied in our Federal system - whether it be executive, judicial or legislative.

Remember: before last summer 2A was not a nationally recognized right. A great many things changed in one day last June. We are just starting to feel them.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 8:46 AM
I'm all for states' rights believe me. But not when it involves the states infringing a right that is protected in the federal constitution. This particular issue is one of the few that is rightfully a federal issue. IMHO

I support a federal law on reciprocity, but not a federal CCW. For a number of reasons.

States rights first off, but even further, do you want DHS determining whether you are a prohibited person or not?

Do you want the anti-gun morons in DC deciding what the requirements for a CCW are and where/how you will complete them?

What happens when someone in the fed gov decides they just aren't going to issue federal CCWs? Well, what happens is a 20 year court battle during which time nobody has a CCW, anywhere. If we win.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Glock22Fan
02-11-2011, 9:00 AM
As a violence policy advocate, it’s important to note that none of what I write is personal conjecture but instead comes from the study of statistics­, polls, and opinion found here as well as other sites on the Internet. It’s come to my attention that gun owners belong to the NRA and are Tea Party Insurrecti­onists Extremist Gun Fetishists who sole purpose is to enable mass murder with the use of assault Glock machine pistols with 30 rounds of deadly rapid fire accuracy. I would like to join my peers and urge legislator­s at every level to Dis the Deadly Myths, Close the Gender Gap, and Reclaim the Constituti­on, by proposing sensible and reasonable policies that register and eventually disarm the public which has worked with great affect in Mexico and Russia.


What is really amazing is the number of people who took this post seriously and responded to it.

Patrick-2
02-11-2011, 9:02 AM
I support a federal law on reciprocity, but not a federal CCW. For a number of reasons.

States rights first off, but even further, do you want DHS determining whether you are a prohibited person or not?

...

I am curious how 2A is an issue of States Rights. Is the entire Bill of Rights a "state's rights" issue or does the state have right to regulate just our most recently recognized fundamental civil right?

Not picking a fight. It's just that I hear this refrain on gun forums quite a bit and am curious of the mindset that makes all the fundamental constitutional protections we have in the Bill of Rights somehow a matter for states to regulate.

Thought the 14th Amendment was designed to fix that (however we get there today)?

Note that this time last year I would not have asked this question; I would have agreed. But things changed last June.

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 9:13 AM
I support a federal law on reciprocity, but not a federal CCW. For a number of reasons.

States rights first off, but even further, do you want DHS determining whether you are a prohibited person or not?

Do you want the anti-gun morons in DC deciding what the requirements for a CCW are and where/how you will complete them?

What happens when someone in the fed gov decides they just aren't going to issue federal CCWs? Well, what happens is a 20 year court battle during which time nobody has a CCW, anywhere. If we win.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Wayne was talking about A) Thune Amendment reciprocity and B) significantly changing federal law involving federal installations, buildings, etc, to allow carry, as well as using it's powers under the territories clause to allow carry. Puerto Rico, the USVI, and the Pacific American Islands have significant problems with their compliance with the demands of both Heller and McDonald. For example, both American Samoa and the Northern Marianas bans purchasing of handgun and possessing them in the home. How is that not unconstitutional post-Heller/McDonald? It is unconstitutional.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 9:29 AM
Wayne was talking about A) Thune Amendment reciprocity and B) significantly changing federal law involving federal installations, buildings, etc, to allow carry, as well as using it's powers under the territories clause to allow carry. Puerto Rico, the USVI, and the Pacific American Islands have significant problems with their compliance with the demands of both Heller and McDonald. For example, both American Samoa and the Northern Marianas bans purchasing of handgun and possessing them in the home. How is that not unconstitutional post-Heller/McDonald? It is unconstitutional.

I understand that. My post was directed to those who seem to be promoting an federally issued CCW.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 9:52 AM
I am curious how 2A is an issue of States Rights. Is the entire Bill of Rights a "state's rights" issue or does the state have right to regulate just our most recently recognized fundamental civil right?

Not picking a fight. It's just that I hear this refrain on gun forums quite a bit and am curious of the mindset that makes all the fundamental constitutional protections we have in the Bill of Rights somehow a matter for states to regulate.

I don't think that states have a right to deny the 2A completely, but with regard to CCW, I believe that states have a right to regulate that as they see fit.

For example, if CA chooses to not recognize my AZ CCW, or not to issue me a CA CCW, that is their right. I don't like it. But it is their right. I'm free to vote with my feet and/or my wallet.

I support a federal reciprocity bill because it serves my own selfish ends, and for no other reason. I make no bones about that. But if it doesn't come about, then I vote with my feet and/or my wallet.

I'm not opposed to a federal CCW being available per se. But not in place of of, or at the expense of the states being allowed to issue them to their residents. "A government that has the power to give everything you want, also has the power to take everything you have."

Kenneth H
02-11-2011, 10:09 AM
Nice. My dues at work on something I care about.

HERE HERE !!!!!

dfletcher
02-11-2011, 10:24 AM
Well, I think one implementation model would work, namely ...

A Federal, probably Constitutional, law that would set forth the construct for estbalishing and managing CCWs in each and EVERY state. But the States would still "administer" the process, adopting Federal rules (law) and probably utilizing some new, centralized, "registry" database/system.

I think in a correctly administered and proper form "national CCW" would be GREAT. But I think that a model for mandatory state-to-state reciprocity utilizing the current state county-Sheriff administration process would be better than a National (Federal) CCW "license" program.

In either case I believe there is an inherent RISK, and please, those that know better correct me where I am wrong, that the more you centralize the process of "adminstration of citizen's rights" the greater the probability that at some point it will be MUCH EASIER for politicians with insidious intent to subvert that "process" and bend it for their politcal gain; which in effect would be to probably introduce the insane, illogical "restrictions" on gun-rights we have seen to date.

If you keep the process as it is today, opponents of the overall process of granting CCW licenses to "qualifying citizens" (as if being a "citizen" is not sufficient) have 50 different venues in which these battles must be fought. It seems to me that takes a lot more resources to accomplish and hence is much harder to do. If it is all centralized opponents now only have one place they need attack and can focus resources.

At least this is how it seems to me.

Anybody agree?

The problem with this approach, as you mentioned, is that what the federal government allows it can also disallow. While we may look good in Congress now that may not always be the case. A President Obama and Speaker of The House Pelosi and with Dick Durbin, Schumer, Kerry or any number of Democratic Senators in 2012 or 2014 is not an impossible occurance - unlikely since Reid was just re-elected, but not impossible. How'd you like to trust them with a "federal CCW"?

Although we get a screwing in CA (and NY, NJ, IL, etc) I'm more comfortable with reciprocity and states doing as they prefer. I think a law must be judged not by the good it can do under best circumstances, but by how much damage it can be used to cause under malevolent circumstances.

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 10:38 AM
I don't think that states have a right to deny the 2A completely, but with regard to CCW, I believe that states have a right to regulate that as they see fit.

For example, if CA chooses to not recognize my AZ CCW, or not to issue me a CA CCW, that is their right. I don't like it. But it is their right. I'm free to vote with my feet and/or my wallet.


Hold the phone, there, dustoff. You are completely wrong here, especially with what I bolded above.

Arizona could technically deny non-residents the ability to apply for a license, or refuse to recognize out of state licenses because they allow open carry both on foot and in a vehicle. Nevada can do the same thing. Utah, however, cannot because they disallow carrying handguns on public streets without a CFP (they issue non-resident licenses and recognize all out of state licenses). Colorado, specifically Denver County, cannot refuse to issue because they ban open carry.

Whether or not a state is constitutionally required to issue a "CCW" to someone from another state is a fact specific situation that is different for each state. With California, the answer is yes, they are constitutionally required to issue full 2 year CCW's to residents of other states, as they ban loaded OC and state a preference for concealed carry only, which if the UOC ban passes, will cement that even more. New York faces a similar problem too.

As for the rest of what you stated, you realize that your "states rights" mentality would lead to handgun owners in New England to be arrested if they have a unloaded handgun in the trunk of their car, per FOPA (codified in 18USC926A), if they happen to traverse through New York or Massachusetts?

stix213
02-11-2011, 11:00 AM
Do you want the anti-gun morons in DC deciding what the requirements for a CCW are and where/how you will complete them?


You prefer leaving that to our pro-gun state legislature? :rolleyes:

Luieburger
02-11-2011, 11:58 AM
That 911 audio gave me chills. How people don't understand that there is evil intent do harm and want to disarm honest folks baffles me.

Yea that 911 call was hard to listen to. I have heard a call where the woman did have a gun and did defend herself from an invasion, but I've never heard one where the woman was helpless. It made me sick inside to think of how horrible that situation is.

I was hesitant a few months ago when I signed up and became an NRA life member, but now I don't think I could be more proud of my membership.

dfletcher
02-11-2011, 12:13 PM
You prefer leaving that to our pro-gun state legislature? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately for us, yes. Should other states surrender the ability to pass their own legislation simply because a few states have anti-gun legislatures? If I lived in MT, ID, AK, AZ or any one of the 40 or so"good gun law" states my answer would be a pretty firm "leave us alone - just because your house is not in order don't screw with mine".

BoxesOfLiberty
02-11-2011, 12:18 PM
I can't imagine a national ccw permit being possible. The only way that would possibly work would be either "national reciprocity" or national Constitutional Carry law. A nationwide permitting system would just never work, at least with state permitting systems we have DL bureaus and law enforcement nationwide to deal with the paperwork etc.

I could swear we already have something like that :)

And on many levels I think that recognition of that is the best eventual outcome. No permit, no license, no tax. Just a recognition of the guaranteed right.

The courts can hammer out the details about prohibited persons and equal protection, but ideally there shouldn't be too much else to discuss.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-11-2011, 12:20 PM
Good speech, overall.

Its great to hear the NRA taking strong sounding stances in favor of carry and against GFSZs.

Charlton Heston was sure a great speaker ... almost Reaganesque.

CalBear
02-11-2011, 12:26 PM
Unfortunately for us, yes. Should other states surrender the ability to pass their own legislation simply because a few states have anti-gun legislatures? If I lived in MT, ID, AK, AZ or any one of the 40 or so"good gun law" states my answer would be a pretty firm "leave us alone - just because your house is not in order don't screw with mine".
It depends on the scenario. I'm a states rights person, but there are times when Congress have power. I've said before, I'm very critical of Congressional powers, because I think they've extended well beyond what is Constitutional. I will not just support something because I like what it does... it has to be Constitutional.

IMO, some form of the Thune Amendment would be Constitutional. The reason is the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and carry firearms from government infringement. The Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce this law that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States and municipalities are not allowed to deny our Second Amendment rights, including carrying a firearm for personal protection. If they do, the courts can strike down their laws OR Congress can make a law to force them to do so.

Congress having that power would not give them blanket power to then nullify other state gun regulations.

gobler
02-11-2011, 12:38 PM
I am a ELP NRA and have no reservations on it. I think the NRA has done far more good for the 2nd over all then any other organization. To be fair, they have been around for a while ;) I do hope what ever path they choose will ensure that I, living in LA county, will be able to get my CCW with no hassle. The 2nd A is part of the BOR which covers the whole nation and all the people so in this instance States rights do not apply. Same as if I wanted to protest I can do it in any state the same way. As for the GFZ.............. :D About damn time :hurray:

Tarn_Helm
02-11-2011, 1:41 PM
You can watch his whole speech here.

http://video.cpac.org/video/show/wayne-lapierre-2011

The best part was when he played the video of the woman and her desperate 9-1-1 call and when the call ended he said " That's who we fight for " and I got goosebumps. I know it's cheesy but it got the right response. (My emphasis.)

"Cheesy?"

It is not "cheesy" to the woman calling 911.

And that is the only person whose opinion counts about that call.

There is a world of difference between bathos and pathos.

Thanks for posting link to the video.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 2:42 PM
Hold the phone, there, dustoff. You are completely wrong here, especially with what I bolded above.

Arizona could technically deny non-residents the ability to apply for a license, or refuse to recognize out of state licenses because they allow open carry both on foot and in a vehicle.

Yes, they could do that. But they don't. And they won't. That's one reason I choose to live here, and not somewhere that makes a concerted effort, repeatedly, to restrict my 2A rights.

Whether or not a state is constitutionally required to issue a "CCW" to someone from another state is a fact specific situation that is different for each state. With California, the answer is yes, they are constitutionally required to issue full 2 year CCW's to residents of other states, as they ban loaded OC and state a preference for concealed carry only, which if the UOC ban passes, will cement that even more. New York faces a similar problem too.

Grey, you know as well as, no, probably better than I, that nobody is required to do anything until a judge tells them they will. And sometimes not even then.

Under my theory, there should not be one single law abiding gun owner living in any state that denies their 2A rights. There should only be criminals, the sheeple, and the turds who make those laws. Screw 'em. Give them what they ask for.

Yes, I could sue I suppose. But I've got better things to spend my money on than forcing people who really don't want me around to accept me.

As for the rest of what you stated, you realize that your "states rights" mentality would lead to handgun owners in New England to be arrested if they have a unloaded handgun in the trunk of their car, per FOPA (codified in 18USC926A), if they happen to traverse through New York or Massachusetts?

No, that's not states rights. Thats a violation of federal law (FOPA). Even though they are required to obey it, I guess a judge hasn't told them so. Or maybe he has.

FirstFlight
02-11-2011, 2:59 PM
Way to go Wayne....that ought to give Congress the idea!

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 5:24 PM
Gray, you know as well as, no, probably better than I, that nobody is required to do anything until a judge tells them they will. And sometimes not even then.

If the "county of residency" is stricken from statute by a federal judge, continued enforcement of such law will result in sanctions and contempt citations for the entire upper brass of said sheriff's office, and they will be hauled off to jail if they refuse to comply. This is not a similar situation to what happened in Heller and McDonald. Since I am suing a sheriff over a law the state has passed, it would require a legislative enactment by the Legislature to in any way interfere with the issuance of a license to carry to me. I believe that our friends in Sacramento (Ed Worley and Tom Pederson) can keep that from happening, and if they can't, I can get a TRO based on a current judgement.

This is assuming, of course, Thune doesn't pass.

Yes, I could sue I suppose. But I've got better things to spend my money on than forcing people who really don't want me around to accept me.

That's not the point. Civil rights must be respected by all of our states, including California. You see, I love rubbing their nose into the fact that they have to respect my civil rights, and cannot just treat out of staters like unwanted strangers when accessing their licensing systems. Thus is the point of my case against Colorado, which can be reimported into California once that case is completed, or perhaps if Nordyke gives us a surprise.


Yes, they could do that. But they don't. And they won't. That's one reason I choose to live here, and not somewhere that makes a concerted effort, repeatedly, to restrict my 2A rights.

Not everyone has the personal flexibility to move to the states surrounding California. So, let me see if I get this straight:

You live in Arizona currently. You have a house in SoCal. I was never born or raised in California, but I was born in Arizona. You keep telling people in California to "leave the state" and "leave it to the criminals", I tell people to stand and fight.

Nice that you wallow in your own self gratification that you're "safe" in Arizona. I've never lived in California, yet I've assisted numerous Californians get their carry licenses, have basically told the sheriff's that they will obey the law (and several sheriffs are now 100 percent in compliance with state law, whereas a year ago none of them where).

Tell me, what have you done to help Californians get their carry rights? You talk of "better things to spend money on", whereas someone like myself, who's never lived there, has done a tremendous amount of work. Freedom isn't free.

Under my theory, there should not be one single law abiding gun owner living in any state that denies their 2A rights. There should only be criminals, the sheeple, and the turds who make those laws. Screw 'em. Give them what they ask for.

Absolutely not. California is still part of the United States of America, regardless of the sneering by other states that keep saying it is. The Constitution still applies there, and they will obey it. Not "or else". Will.

Not to mention, what I said before: Not everyone can just pick up and move.

No, that's not states rights. Thats a violation of federal law (FOPA). Even though they are required to obey it, I guess a judge hasn't told them so. Or maybe he has.

Purely car/vehicle transport is well known and the New York authorities know not to enforce it. LEOSA is based on FOPA. The Thune Amendment is based on the same principle as well, and all have been held to be constitutional.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 6:04 PM
Not everyone has the personal flexibility to move to the states surrounding California. So, let me see if I get this straight:

You live in Arizona currently. You have a house in SoCal. I was never born or raised in California, but I was born in Arizona. You keep telling people in California to "leave the state" and "leave it to the criminals", I tell people to stand and fight.

I have never told anyone to leave CA. I've only said that I did. Everyone makes their own choices and has to live with the consequences of that choice.

I wasn't born in CA, but might as well have been. I lived there for over 40 years and watched a once great state circle the toilet bowl at an ever increasing rate. Gun rights, although high on the list of reasons to leave, was only one item on a very, very, long list.

The house that I still maintain in CA is for my mother in law who didn't want to leave. Aside from that, as far as I'm concerned there is absolutely nothing worth fighting for in CA. When she passes on, I won't care if I ever set foot in CA again.

Nice that you wallow in your own self gratification that you're "safe" in Arizona.

I made my choice. It was good one.

Tell me, what have you done to help Californians get their carry rights? You talk of "better things to spend money on", whereas someone like myself, who's never lived there, has done a tremendous amount of work. Freedom isn't free.

Well as I said, I lived there for over 40 years and during that time did all the things I was supposed to do support and further gun rights.

As for Freedom not being free, as a 25 year disabled Army veteran, and 3 time combat veteran, I believe I have a pretty good handle on that concept.

Not to mention, what I said before: Not everyone can just pick up and move.

Anyone can move. Some do. Some choose not to.

Glock22Fan
02-11-2011, 7:45 PM
snip


Anyone can move. Some do. Some choose not to, some are under tremendous family and/or financial pressure not to.

Fixed it for you.

dustoff31
02-11-2011, 7:57 PM
Fixed it for you.

I completely understand that. I don't fault anyone for staying for whatever reason they see fit. But it is nevertheless their choice.

Funtimes
02-11-2011, 9:14 PM
Tell me, what have you done to help Californians get their carry rights? You talk of "better things to spend money on", whereas someone like myself, who's never lived there, has done a tremendous amount of work. Freedom isn't free.
Will.

Not to mention, what I said before: Not everyone can just pick up and move.



[/QUOTE]

I know Gray must spend lots of time for CA. Hell, he even was speaking to me on the phone for like 2 hours and some change.

I still think American Samoa is a great place for you to visit Gray :P.

kcbrown
02-11-2011, 9:20 PM
Here's the way I see it: states are free to pass laws that make their citizens more free than they would be under strictly federal law.

They should not be free to pass laws that make their citizens less free than they would be under only federal law.

It's long, long past time we got off the treadmill of ever decreasing freedom.

Enough is enough!!

hoffmang
02-11-2011, 10:40 PM
I do really wish more gun owners actually read the constitution.


AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

The Second Amendment applies to California precisely because the so called "states rights" were limited by the 14th amendment. Congress could pass a law that allowed any citizen or resident alien to apply for and receive on a shall issue basis a license to carry a concealed firearm if they were first denied such a license by their state of residence.

That would respect state's prerogatives and would otherwise undermine those states who were not respecting the civil rights of the people.

However, I expect this conversation was really about nationwide reciprocity.

-Gene

Funtimes
02-12-2011, 2:56 AM
I do really wish more gun owners actually read the constitution.



The Second Amendment applies to California precisely because the so called "states rights" were limited by the 14th amendment. Congress could pass a law that allowed any citizen or resident alien to apply for and receive on a shall issue basis a license to carry a concealed firearm if they were first denied such a license by their state of residence.

That would respect state's prerogatives and would otherwise undermine those states who were not respecting the civil rights of the people.

However, I expect this conversation was really about nationwide reciprocity.

-Gene

Wasn't one of the concerns on adopting the P&I argument that it would have made things like SS marriage and stuff enforceable across state lines? I remember hearing some talk about stuff like that.

If some of these other civil rights (DADT, DOMA etc) cases go through, maybe the P&I clause would be a stronger argument than it was before?

press1280
02-12-2011, 4:24 AM
I've said before that any license OOS or not should be valid in all 50, but looking at that, it would cause big problems in the sense that a state that charges $10 for a license would be flooded with applicants, while states like FL would have virtually no business at all. It's a C22, but it could be solved if there was something in the Congress that called for every state to issue to their own residents on a SI/VSI basis. I asked Thune about this (actually, his staff member Adrian), and she said "one step at a time".

I say "each time it loses, we add more, and it's lost how many times"? This would be a good opportunity to shove another "be careful what you wish for" pies in the faces of the lib's.

Erik.

The latest version of Thune basically makes OOS permits valid in 47 states(your residence state, along w/WI and IL at the moment are not covered). It would be going too far to make an OOS permit valid in CA for a CA resident. And yes, that would essentially make it a "race to the bottom" with everyone going right to the cheapest and easiest CCW.

press1280
02-12-2011, 4:34 AM
I'm also curious if Thune will have DC covered in any new legislation. His language from the last bill(sorry I don't have it handy) reads something like ,"states that issue concealed carry permits(would be recognized in other states that issue concealed carry permits)."
Perhaps it should be changed to concealed carry permits should be recognized in any state that has a concealed carry law, as DC still has their law on the books but the chief of police has been stripped of the power to issue any permits post-Heller.

Patrick-2
02-12-2011, 5:12 AM
DC is probably going to be liberalized by Congress and the courts in the next year or two. The Heller II case could strip a good portion of the current gun control away. The appeals court is asking questions that suggest they created a formula to offer relief that is not 2A related.

And then there is Congress. Last year DC almost went shall-issue in exchange for a chance at real congressional representation. It went down to the wire, but DC eventually balked and had the deal pulled. They made a bet that they could get representation without it. They bet that Pelosi would ram it through last year or this one.

Bad bet.

I would be surprised if Congress did not get involved soon. Either through Thune or another specific bill.

Gray Peterson
02-12-2011, 8:25 AM
Wasn't one of the concerns on adopting the P&I argument that it would have made things like SS marriage and stuff enforceable across state lines? I remember hearing some talk about stuff like that.

If some of these other civil rights (DADT, DOMA etc) cases go through, maybe the P&I clause would be a stronger argument than it was before?

Not really. DADT is a federal statute that applies to the US Armed Forces (so Article IV doesn't apply there), the DADT challenge there is (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America) and using the 5th amendment. The current DOMA cases that are filed in the 1st (Gill v. OPM, Massachusetts v. United States), 2nd (Pederson v. OPM), and 9th Circuits (Drazovich v. United States Department of Treasury) are challenging DOMA Section 3 (federal recognition) under the 5th amendment due process clause and under Bolling v. Sharpe equal protection principles.

The current marriage cases (the Perry case in California, the Minnesota case) seem to be dealing with purely due process/equal protection issues under either the federal constitution or the state constitution. There are divorce cases in Texas which are using FF&C however I am not sure of their status or whether or not the attorneys will appeal them to SCOTUS. It seems that the folks pursuing marriage are going down the strategic civil rights litigation path, whereas divorce is pursuing it on behalf of their clients interests.

Silly situation: One can get married in one state but can't divorce in another. States that offer marriage to certain couples don't allow divorce by non-residents who move out of said state, limiting their ability to travel or move places for fear of not being able to divorce. This is exactly what FF&C was supposed to eliminate, but I digress.

dantodd
02-12-2011, 8:48 AM
Wasn't one of the concerns on adopting the P&I argument that it would have made things like SS marriage and stuff enforceable across state lines? I remember hearing some talk about stuff like that.


Same sex marriages are already recognized across state borders. This is one of the areas the "full faith and credit" clause applies.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

Gray Peterson
02-12-2011, 9:11 AM
Same sex marriages are already recognized across state borders. This is one of the areas the "full faith and credit" clause applies.



Tell that to Texas.

dantodd
02-12-2011, 9:23 AM
Tell that to Texas.

I wasn't aware this was an issue. Can you point me to a place to start reading?

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

wildhawker
02-12-2011, 10:26 AM
See also, "Second Amendment Enforcement Act".

hoffmang
02-12-2011, 11:00 AM
Wasn't one of the concerns on adopting the P&I argument that it would have made things like SS marriage and stuff enforceable across state lines? I remember hearing some talk about stuff like that.

The issue is that marriage was clearly a privilege or immunity as the southern states specifically tried to keep blacks from marrying some blacks and whites.

-Gene

Funtimes
02-12-2011, 9:52 PM
The issue is that marriage was clearly a privilege or immunity as the southern states specifically tried to keep blacks from marrying some blacks and whites.

-Gene

What worms would it have opened up with adopting P&I? That was what they were teasing Alan about being trying to get to a Chair in a Law School right?

Just wasn't to sure what the "cats in the bag" were for applying the 2a under the P&I, can you elaborate a little?

hoffmang
02-12-2011, 10:47 PM
What worms would it have opened up with adopting P&I? That was what they were teasing Alan about being trying to get to a Chair in a Law School right?

Just wasn't to sure what the "cats in the bag" were for applying the 2a under the P&I, can you elaborate a little?

The only real "worm" that was down the P or I incorporation logic was whether rights are only for citizens. No serious P or I scholar/lawyer thinks that Privileges or Immunities only apply to citizens as the definition was strained to reply to Dred Scott.That was the only "gotcha."

-Gene

Funtimes
02-13-2011, 8:27 AM
Thanks Gene!

Window_Seat
02-13-2011, 10:14 AM
The issue is that marriage was clearly a privilege or immunity as the southern states specifically tried to keep blacks from marrying some blacks and whites.

-Gene

So could Perry argue that same sex marriage is also a privilege or immunity if/when it goes to SCOTUS, and would they OT Slaughterhouse in the name of gay marriage being a PorI?

Erik.

hoffmang
02-13-2011, 10:41 AM
So could Perry argue that same sex marriage is also a privilege or immunity if/when it goes to SCOTUS, and would they OT Slaughterhouse in the name of gay marriage being a PorI
Yes. No.

-Gene

Patrick-2
02-13-2011, 2:16 PM
Yes. No.

-Gene

I agree.

Gay Marriage is as close to the 20th Century application (and invention) of "Substantive Due Process" as you can get today. It's a straight argument to make. Arguing PoI would be a waste of time for them, especially since the court has made its views on the matter clear (for now).

The question is whether Wayne LaPierre will endorse national concealed carry for gay marriages. Pink Pistols for all? ;)

hoffmang
02-13-2011, 10:16 PM
The question is whether Wayne LaPierre will endorse national concealed carry for gay marriages. Pink Pistols for all? ;)

Those Calgunners that marched in last years Gay Pride parade, the chant was "Marriage License! Carry License!"

-Gene

wildhawker
02-14-2011, 12:24 AM
Good times.

0pXRYAe979A

Patrick-2
02-14-2011, 5:04 AM
Those Calgunners that marched in last years Gay Pride parade, the chant was "Marriage License! Carry License!"

-Gene

Only in California. :)

Somehow I don't think the same strategy will work here in the South. Or even in the "almost South" that Maryland considers itself, Mason-Dixon Line notwithstanding.

Good for CalGuns.

J.D.Allen
02-14-2011, 9:10 AM
the "almost South" that Maryland considers itself, Mason-Dixon Line notwithstanding.


Don't you dare say any such blasphemous thing in the "real south" where I used to live..."them's fahtin' words" there. ;)

Window_Seat
02-14-2011, 10:06 AM
Don't you dare say any such blasphemous thing in the "real south" where I used to live..."them's fahtin' words" there they-er, how 'boudit. ;)

Fixed. :laugh:

Erik.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Don't you dare say any such blasphemous thing in the "real south" where I used to live..."them's fahtin' words" there. ;)

Farting words? :p

Window_Seat
02-14-2011, 11:38 AM
Farting words? :p

We aren't talking about the "buttalks" here... :eek:

But in digressing.

I'm considering writing (by fax or email) Senator Thune, and asking his office about this (as far as the Thune Amendment [TA]).

I'm again becoming bent on 50 state reciprocity, and asking him that (since WI is going to be SI in time), what, if any, are the plans to get IL into compliance (besides Mishaga)?

I would like to not only see Peterson mooted by the TA, but if there is some way that the TA could moot Mishaga.

Before, I wanted my OOS permit to be automatically valid in all 50, but realized that it would cause serious problems.

Instead of that, would it be better if a person's OOS permit was automatically valid in their state of residence ONLY IF that state is a may issue/no issue state?

This type of deal could be similar to Utah's new legislation (HR-0036), but just not valid in a the resident's state that is SI, even if that person has a valid permit from their own state, so we don't have to go out and get 5+ permits in order to carry in 39 states (or whatever it is today). Once that happens, then CA would have no choice but to jump on the bandwagon, otherwise lose that much $$ in revenue that could go into the state's budget or Law Enforcement Agencies.

Again (as I've said before, and by using this analogy), a resident outdoor only dog is sitting at the back window while a friend comes over with his dog, and that dog begins drinking from a makeshift dish that the resident accommodates for the visiting dog (inside the house where it's dry and comfortable). Does anyone think that will sit well with the resident outdoor dog? Like BHO said, we will be treated like dogs.

DeLeon & the others will say "that's fine with us, but by not allowing the issuance of permits to residents, we still minimize the number of "illegal & dangerous guns on the street". Bloomberg will have the same attitude.

It would be a rightful slap in the face of NJ as well in light of the fact that they prefer to go after LACs instead of criminals (see Brian Aitken's case).

Anyone?

Erik.

kcbrown
02-14-2011, 3:39 PM
We aren't talking about the "buttalks" here... :eek:

But in digressing.

I'm considering writing (by fax or email) Senator Thune, and asking his office about this (as far as the Thune Amendment [TA]).

I'm again becoming bent on 50 state reciprocity, and asking him that (since WI is going to be SI in time), what, if any, are the plans to get IL into compliance (besides Mishaga)?

I would like to not only see Peterson mooted by the TA, but if there is some way that the TA could moot Mishaga.

Before, I wanted my OOS permit to be automatically valid in all 50, but realized that it would cause serious problems.

Instead of that, would it be better if a person's OOS permit was automatically valid in their state of residence ONLY IF that state is a may issue/no issue state?

This type of deal could be similar to Utah's new legislation (HR-0036), but just not valid in a the resident's state that is SI, even if that person has a valid permit from their own state, so we don't have to go out and get 5+ permits in order to carry in 39 states (or whatever it is today). Once that happens, then CA would have no choice but to jump on the bandwagon, otherwise lose that much $$ in revenue that could go into the state's budget or Law Enforcement Agencies.

Again (as I've said before, and by using this analogy), a resident outdoor only dog is sitting at the back window while a friend comes over with his dog, and that dog begins drinking from a makeshift dish that the resident accommodates for the visiting dog (inside the house where it's dry and comfortable). Does anyone think that will sit well with the resident outdoor dog? Like BHO said, we will be treated like dogs.

DeLeon & the others will say "that's fine with us, but by not allowing the issuance of permits to residents, we still minimize the number of "illegal & dangerous guns on the street". Bloomberg will have the same attitude.

It would be a rightful slap in the face of NJ as well in light of the fact that they prefer to go after LACs instead of criminals (see Brian Aitken's case).

Anyone?



A couple of points:



What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. I'd much rather see carry, on the part of both in-state and out-of-state residents, won at the Supreme Court rather than have such rights backstopped only by a fickle, two-faced Congress.
GFSZs. Legislation such as the Thune Amendment may make concealed carry on the part of out-of-staters possible here in California but even if out-of-staters were somehow exempt from the California GFSZs, in-staters who have out-of-state permits almost certainly won't be. Depends on the language in the bill, but the bill will have to have explicit language of some kind exempting people from state restrictions on carry for it to be effective here.

wildhawker
02-14-2011, 4:16 PM
You mean, you desire one of those tenuous, wildly context-dependent USSC decisions?!

I gasp! :D

-Brandon

A couple of points:



What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. I'd much rather see carry, on the part of both in-state and out-of-state residents, won at the Supreme Court rather than have such rights backstopped only by a fickle, two-faced Congress.
GFSZs. Legislation such as the Thune Amendment may make concealed carry on the part of out-of-staters possible here in California but even if out-of-staters were somehow exempt from the California GFSZs, in-staters who have out-of-state permits almost certainly won't be. Depends on the language in the bill, but the bill will have to have explicit language of some kind exempting people from state restrictions on carry for it to be effective here.

kcbrown
02-14-2011, 4:26 PM
You mean, you desire one of those tenuous, wildly context-dependent USSC decisions?!

I gasp! :D

-Brandon

LOL!

Well, it's all a matter of degree. SCOTUS decisions may be tenuous and subject to being overturned in another 20 years or so (basically, however long it takes for the court to have its composition changed sufficiently), but legislation is subject to being overturned in the next election cycle.

There are no truly good options, because the Constitution quite clearly doesn't mean what it says... :mad:

Patrick-2
02-14-2011, 5:56 PM
Don't you dare say any such blasphemous thing in the "real south" where I used to live..."them's fahtin' words" there. ;)

I have it on good authoritah that I am almost in the South. My town is below DC and most of Northern Virginia. We eat crabs we pull from the water ourselves, I own a backhoe and shoot out in my woods. I even look redneck.

Just don't tell the locals I am from New York (and more recently, LA). :kest:

What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. I'd much rather see carry, on the part of both in-state and out-of-state residents, won at the Supreme Court rather than have such rights backstopped only by a fickle, two-faced Congress.



What he said.