PDA

View Full Version : Question about National CCW & Federal Preemption


Zhukov
02-07-2008, 3:31 AM
If Congress was to pass a national concealed carry law would this then preempt all other state laws and regulations regarding their local CCW laws? I was looking over federal preemption and I'm not 100% on this.

If so, do you think, since Congress is significantly more gun friendly than our own state's legislature, that this would be a better place to fight for CCW? Considering more than 3/4 of the US' States allow CCW, I could see this actually passing a lot sooner than getting 'shall issue' into this state.

Gmountain
02-07-2008, 3:46 AM
What Congress giveth, Congress taketh away. We already have a national law-it's called the Second Amendment.

This is not the business of the federal government.

Zhukov
02-07-2008, 3:54 AM
What Congress giveth, Congress taketh away. We already have a national law-it's called the Second Amendment.

This is not the business of the federal government.

Too bad too many STATE courts disagree about the meaning of that law. Our 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee concealed carry and that's my point. If SCOTUS reaffirms our right, it doesn't mean we'd be able to then CCW at will.

As far as I've seen it, when it comes to gun laws recently, Congress has been helpful. A hell of a lot more helpful than our own state, really. And with Congress being so pro-gun in general, for fear of losing your seats if you are not...that's kind of a buffer in regards to us "losing" anything after it's been given.

Gmountain
02-07-2008, 4:02 AM
The place to deal with the problem is California.

Zhukov
02-07-2008, 4:06 AM
The place to deal with the problem is California.

So you believe it's better to sit back instead of discussing alternative ways of achieving the same goal?

I'd rather we stay proactive and try to consider other ways constructively weighing the pros and cons of an idea instead of "We have the 2nd amendment" - Stop hiding behind just that, even if it is a valid argument. It doesn't help in any way.

liketoshoot
02-07-2008, 5:47 AM
The place to deal with the problem is California.

If we can get the legal gun voters out to vote and we all vote for pro-gun rights we can change this state. It needs us gun owners to back the right candidates.
"WE THE PEOPLE......"

CCWFacts
02-07-2008, 7:51 AM
There is in fact a national preemption bill in congress right now:

SB 388 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00388:) / HR 861 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00861:) is the national reciprocity bill. I encourage you to write to your reps and senators urging them to sign on as co-sponsors. We already have 4 reps from California signed on to this bill, and we could get more. And one of our two senators is know to have had a CCW.

This bill would not (I am told) allow a California resident to get a Utah non-res permit and carry in California based on that permit. "So what's the use" you may wonder. This bill would help us tremendously. Suddenly tourists from anywhere would be able to carry here, but Californians (from LA, SF, etc) couldn't. It would make it a lot easier to persuade authorities to issue and could get us started in the leg. And many Californians would start declaring residency in some other state, and the leg. would realize that this is happening and decide that they don't want to lose the tax money.

This bill is a huge win for any of us in the hold-out states. I think that a bill like this, or legal fallout from Heller, are the main ways we're going to force CCW reform in CA, NJ, HI, etc.

Gmountain
02-07-2008, 7:54 AM
I do not want the federal government involved in anything more than they are right now. I want them involved less. We do not need more federal government dictates, telling us who can get a CCW, and what the qualifications should be, and where and when a person can carry, and what they can carry, and how many weapons they can carry. This is none of the federal government's business.

CCWFacts
02-07-2008, 8:02 AM
I do not want the federal government involved in anything more than they are right now. I want them involved less. We do not need more federal government dictates, telling us who can get a CCW, and what the qualifications should be, and where and when a person can carry, and what they can carry, and how many weapons they can carry. This is none of the federal government's business.

You're right, that is none of the fed's biz, and this bill has none of those things. It does not in any way change the requirements or limitations of a CCW. It's very simple. It says, "a person with a CCW issued in any state (implying the person's state of residence) may carry in any other state, subject to that state's CCW laws, or subject to his home state's CCW laws if that state has no CCW laws". That's it. The feds are saying "states must honor each other's permits", without changing anything about the states' permit laws or systems.

This bill can only be a win for us. Here's the "working part" of the bill:

`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in any State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) OTHER LIMITATIONS- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not, in that State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by the law of that State.'.

That's all there is to it. Short and easy to read and understand what it's doing. No tricks in there, no federal restrictions or changes to state laws. It is not in any way changing state laws or state CCW systems, or creating some kind of "federal CCW".

FreedomIsNotFree
02-07-2008, 8:51 AM
I do not want the federal government involved in anything more than they are right now. I want them involved less. We do not need more federal government dictates, telling us who can get a CCW, and what the qualifications should be, and where and when a person can carry, and what they can carry, and how many weapons they can carry. This is none of the federal government's business.

Think along the lines of Driver's Licenses. When you drive out of state, you are subject to that State's rules of the road, but your license is still valid. You are not required to obtain a drivers license in every state that you plan to travel within.

Piper
02-07-2008, 9:42 AM
Too bad too many STATE courts disagree about the meaning of that law. Our 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee concealed carry and that's my point. If SCOTUS reaffirms our right, it doesn't mean we'd be able to then CCW at will.

I have to disagree with you on this. The second amendment says in the second half....the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Remember, the constitution limited government, not the people.

I read a book about concealed carry in the U.S. and it specifically cites the evolution of concealed carry laws beginning in the south to prevent duels which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense but that was the logic never the less. California aquired laws like that because of people from the south migrating to California, presumably because of the gold rush. However, northern states didn't have concealed laws until the 1920's. In all cases, these concealed laws went unchallenged which means that the constitutionality of these laws has still not been proved.

The bottom line is this, the Constitution guarantees our right to carry a firearm and doesn't limit the fashion in which that firearm can be carried. I would suggest to anyone that considers concealed carry a power of the government to regulate, that we are giving the government a power not originally intended by the framers. I personally think it's unreasonable to regulate concealed carry when there are valid reasons to cover your side arm in cases like incliment weather for a start. I personally wouldn't want my side arm rained on if I'm open carrying and if I could protect it with a raincoat.

Concealed carry is simply an unconstitutional law that politicians made up and no one challenged. That needs to change.

Gmountain
02-07-2008, 9:44 AM
Think along the lines of Driver's Licenses. When you drive out of state, you are subject to that State's rules of the road, but your license is still valid. You are not required to obtain a drivers license in every state that you plan to travel within.
That's not by federal law, that is by agreement of the states, which is the same as we have now with CCW.

Zhukov
02-07-2008, 10:49 AM
Hrm, I can see your point there. I'm still a little iffy on that, but I can definitely go with your position.

It's consitutional so long as it's not proved otherwise it seems these days. Like that SF gun ban. It's pretty sad.

I just would like to see this state progress to a less...well...stupid stance on guns. If we could get more Libertarians or Republican Fiscal Conservatives in I'm sure we could get this state out of debt. Sure, we'd lose a lot of pork spending...but I sure won't mind =)

I have to disagree with you on this. The second amendment says in the second half....the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Remember, the constitution limited government, not the people.

I read a book about concealed carry in the U.S. and it specifically cites the evolution of concealed carry laws beginning in the south to prevent duels which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense but that was the logic never the less. California aquired laws like that because of people from the south migrating to California, presumably because of the gold rush. However, northern states didn't have concealed laws until the 1920's. In all cases, these concealed laws went unchallenged which means that the constitutionality of these laws has still not been proved.

The bottom line is this, the Constitution guarantees our right to carry a firearm and doesn't limit the fashion in which that firearm can be carried. I would suggest to anyone that considers concealed carry a power of the government to regulate, that we are giving the government a power not originally intended by the framers. I personally think it's unreasonable to regulate concealed carry when there are valid reasons to cover your side arm in cases like incliment weather for a start. I personally wouldn't want my side arm rained on if I'm open carrying and if I could protect it with a raincoat.

Concealed carry is simply an unconstitutional law that politicians made up and no one challenged. That needs to change.