Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-11-2019, 9:20 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaffo View Post
Constitutional carry, by it's very name, should be nation-wide, just like free speech or any other "God-given" right.
Of course, and I don't see why some can't see that. States should not have the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-11-2019, 11:53 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Garbage bill. We need one that allows anyone with "A" ccw from "ANY" state to carry nationwide.
YOU need to read the bill. It already contains just such stipulation.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...%5D%7D&s=1&r=5

Quote:
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (01/09/2019)
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019

This bill allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms.

A qualified individual must (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid state-issued concealed carry permit, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence.
Also provides for citizens of Con Carry States to carry in every state.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-12-2019, 2:37 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems the bill has all bases covered even for people that live in no issue states. But I think it would be better if states had no say in anything but instead you get a Federal CCW that would be valid in all states without having to have anything issued by any state.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-12-2019, 3:57 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 708
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
It seems the bill has all bases covered even for people that live in no issue states. But I think it would be better if states had no say in anything but instead you get a Federal CCW that would be valid in all states without having to have anything issued by any state.
A federal law to that effect raises a host of issues that would be neatly avoided by a Supreme Court decision that there is a constitutional right to bear arms that would invalidate all CCW and open carry restrictions, or, as the D.C. case, hold that permits would have to be issued on a shall issue basis, allowing only restrictions as to those adjudicated mentally ill or felons.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-12-2019, 4:18 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,834
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Cool, but utterly dead. Can't pass the House, can't pass the Senate.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-12-2019, 4:47 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
A federal law to that effect raises a host of issues that would be neatly avoided by a Supreme Court decision that there is a constitutional right to bear arms that would invalidate all CCW and open carry restrictions, or, as the D.C. case, hold that permits would have to be issued on a shall issue basis, allowing only restrictions as to those adjudicated mentally ill or felons.
Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-12-2019, 5:31 PM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 398
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
MRRabit, I think you're definition of Libertarian is a little screwy here. Libertarianism generally clings to restraining government from restricting an individual's rights. Libertarianism isn't defined as the states having the ability to restrain rights. I think your view of what it means to "cherish rights" is probably a few paces off from the norm as well.

Absolutely right. By this argument, the 13th Amendment (bans slavery in the states) violates Libertarian small government = liberty principles.

The Framers, at least the anti-Federalists, did seem to assume that it was only the national government that would infringe on individual liberties; but, of course, we now know that is not true, and why the nature of Federalism was forever changed by the 14th Amendment.

Recall that the Bill of Rights didn’t even begin to be applied (ie, incorporated) to the states (and cities and counties and local police, etc) until the 14th was ratified in 1868. The Framers were long dead by then and would be likely shocked if you suggested to them that a promise made by Thomas Jefferson to the anti-Federalists (the Bill of Rights) would someday be applied to the states.

I do think it is short sighted to want Congress to stick the camel’s nose under the tent wrt state CCW laws. We are one election away from President Leftist and a Democrat Senate to go along with Speaker Pelosi. Did you know that the Democrat House has already introduced a bill to repeal and replace the PLCAA (gun manufacturer immunity) in June?
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-12-2019, 5:53 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,252
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
A federal law to that effect raises a host of issues that would be neatly avoided by a Supreme Court decision that there is a constitutional right to bear arms that would invalidate all CCW and open carry restrictions, or, as the D.C. case, hold that permits would have to be issued on a shall issue basis, allowing only restrictions as to those adjudicated mentally ill or felons.
Since Heller spoke to only possession in the home and not carrying in public there is still work to be done. Which will never happen if "national reciprocity" in some form becomes law. We'll all pat each other on the back and say "well done" and that will be the end of it.

Laws can be undone by a future Congress hostile to the 2nd Amendment. A SCOTUS decision stands on stronger ground.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-12-2019, 7:01 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guninator View Post
Absolutely right. By this argument, the 13th Amendment (bans slavery in the states) violates Libertarian small government = liberty principles.

The Framers, at least the anti-Federalists, did seem to assume that it was only the national government that would infringe on individual liberties; but, of course, we now know that is not true, and why the nature of Federalism was forever changed by the 14th Amendment.

Recall that the Bill of Rights didn’t even begin to be applied (ie, incorporated) to the states (and cities and counties and local police, etc) until the 14th was ratified in 1868. The Framers were long dead by then and would be likely shocked if you suggested to them that a promise made by Thomas Jefferson to the anti-Federalists (the Bill of Rights) would someday be applied to the states.

I do think it is short sighted to want Congress to stick the camel’s nose under the tent wrt state CCW laws. We are one election away from President Leftist and a Democrat Senate to go along with Speaker Pelosi. Did you know that the Democrat House has already introduced a bill to repeal and replace the PLCAA (gun manufacturer immunity) in June?
Keep it up with the strawmen folks...

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-13-2019, 5:06 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
A federal law to that effect raises a host of issues that would be neatly avoided by a Supreme Court decision that there is a constitutional right to bear arms that would invalidate all CCW and open carry restrictions, or, as the D.C. case, hold that permits would have to be issued on a shall issue basis, allowing only restrictions as to those adjudicated mentally ill or felons.
I agree the Supreme Court could and should fix the problem of states denying rights of self defense, but even this fix would still be in the form of the federal gov overruling states that deny rights they shouldn't.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-13-2019, 6:41 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 935
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What should actually happen, and was an oversight of the Constitution and never rectified, was federal legislation that forced the states to adopt the entire BoR into each state’s constitution to participate as part of the federal government. It’s unbelievable that close to 300 years later, this is still missing.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-13-2019, 7:35 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
What should actually happen, and was an oversight of the Constitution and never rectified, was federal legislation that forced the states to adopt the entire BoR into each state’s constitution to participate as part of the federal government. It’s unbelievable that close to 300 years later, this is still missing.
It was the States that formed the Federal Government, and it was the States and key individuals from those States that pressured for a WRITTEN reminder to the Federal Government of those rights that are reserved to the People and to the States.

The problem is not the States per se, it's the people in power running them that went arrogant elitist sometime after...

The States didn't push a written reminder in order to reserve to themselves the right to infringe on rights - they did so to make it clear to the Federal Government that it is to respect the rights of IT'S citizens and States.

In other words, the Bill of Rights came from the States.

This is a fundamental reason why I have never bought into the "incorporation" of the BoR to the States bull****...it's a diversion and run-around of that which is natural and recognized as preexisting.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 11-13-2019 at 7:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-13-2019, 8:34 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 935
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Per usual, your reading of history is a bit “skewed.” 10A was a catch-all for whatever domain the FedGov didn’t occupy. It’s why it was the last amendment in the original document; intended to “wrap-up” loose ends, not to enable tyranny at the state level.

The problem with you, Rabbit, is that you never apply context and politics to the situation as it happened. That’s why you are unable to comprehend why Heller doesn’t say what you think it does.

The Articles of Confederation was weak-sauce, and the Constitution went through multiple revisions. We got there because prior attempts didn’t enforce a strong-enough measure on the states. The amendments restrained FedGov because the states feared its potential power, but they were also the capitulations necessary to seal the agreement, after-which made the rules supreme law. FedGov was intended to be a one-way deal, with states giving up some of their rights to be part of the collective whole, and abiding by the document they agreed to. 2A was a disaster plan in case it all went to hell.

The Federalists won the debate and the supremacy of FedGov has never seriously been in question. It is completely within the original intent to make the states obey the BoR, or else why 14A?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:48 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Per usual, your reading of history is a bit “skewed.” 10A was a catch-all for whatever domain the FedGov didn’t occupy. It’s why it was the last amendment in the original document; intended to “wrap-up” loose ends, not to enable tyranny at the state level.

The problem with you, Rabbit, is that you never apply context and politics to the situation as it happened. That’s why you are unable to comprehend why Heller doesn’t say what you think it does.

The Articles of Confederation was weak-sauce, and the Constitution went through multiple revisions. We got there because prior attempts didn’t enforce a strong-enough measure on the states. The amendments restrained FedGov because the states feared its potential power, but they were also the capitulations necessary to seal the agreement, after-which made the rules supreme law. FedGov was intended to be a one-way deal, with states giving up some of their rights to be part of the collective whole, and abiding by the document they agreed to. 2A was a disaster plan in case it all went to hell.

The Federalists won the debate and the supremacy of FedGov has never seriously been in question. It is completely within the original intent to make the states obey the BoR, or else why 14A?
I agree
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:49 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
What should actually happen, and was an oversight of the Constitution and never rectified, was federal legislation that forced the states to adopt the entire BoR into each state’s constitution to participate as part of the federal government. It’s unbelievable that close to 300 years later, this is still missing.
Good point.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-13-2019, 2:26 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Per usual, your reading of history is a bit “skewed.” 10A was a catch-all for whatever domain the FedGov didn’t occupy. It’s why it was the last amendment in the original document; intended to “wrap-up” loose ends, not to enable tyranny at the state level.

The problem with you, Rabbit, is that you never apply context and politics to the situation as it happened. That’s why you are unable to comprehend why Heller doesn’t say what you think it does.

The Articles of Confederation was weak-sauce, and the Constitution went through multiple revisions. We got there because prior attempts didn’t enforce a strong-enough measure on the states. The amendments restrained FedGov because the states feared its potential power, but they were also the capitulations necessary to seal the agreement, after-which made the rules supreme law. FedGov was intended to be a one-way deal, with states giving up some of their rights to be part of the collective whole, and abiding by the document they agreed to. 2A was a disaster plan in case it all went to hell.

The Federalists won the debate and the supremacy of FedGov has never seriously been in question. It is completely within the original intent to make the states obey the BoR, or else why 14A?
Heller v. DC says . . .

exactly
what
it
says

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-13-2019, 3:47 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Heller v. DC says . . .

exactly
what
it
says

=8-)
Which has been repeatedly shown. IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS!

DICTA is NOT a FINDING!

Which you refuse to acknowledge. Rather than accept, that you are wrong. You just repeatedly drop your little, pdf Rabbit Pellets. Without even realizing that you are proving yourself wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-14-2019, 6:01 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Which has been repeatedly shown. IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS!

DICTA is NOT a FINDING!

Which you refuse to acknowledge. Rather than accept, that you are wrong. You just repeatedly drop your little, pdf Rabbit Pellets. Without even realizing that you are proving yourself wrong.
And in Caetano v. Massachusetts SCOTUS said . . .

exactly
what
they
said

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-14-2019, 3:48 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,252
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Which has been repeatedly shown. IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS!

DICTA is NOT a FINDING!

Which you refuse to acknowledge. Rather than accept, that you are wrong. You just repeatedly drop your little, pdf Rabbit Pellets. Without even realizing that you are proving yourself wrong.
I would be interested in an opinion regarding the Caetano decision. It's neither long nor complicated. I just read it in its entirety. While I'm usually about 60-40 disagreeing with mrrabbit I do see his point on this issue -

The Caetano decision referenced possession and use of a stun gun for self-defense and did not limit it to doing so in the home. Specific reference was made to possession in public.

On the other hand, Caetano did reference Heller several times and as we all know, Heller spoke to only possession in the home.

So, might be worthwhile for someone smarter than me to read the decision and give an opinion?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-14-2019, 7:55 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I would be interested in an opinion regarding the Caetano decision. It's neither long nor complicated. I just read it in its entirety. While I'm usually about 60-40 disagreeing with mrrabbit I do see his point on this issue -

The Caetano decision referenced possession and use of a stun gun for self-defense and did not limit it to doing so in the home. Specific reference was made to possession in public.

On the other hand, Caetano did reference Heller several times and as we all know, Heller spoke to only possession in the home.

So, might be worthwhile for someone smarter than me to read the decision and give an opinion?
Heller v. DC

Cited and reference quite a few bear / carry cases going back 200 years. One was a SCOTUS decison . . .

Most were State decisions.

Most were cases involving someone bearing or carrying out and about in public - on the road, going about one's business, shopping, etc.

Now...to avoid turning this into another open carry v. concealed carry thread...

I'll just keep it short...

Heller v. DC recognized CCW as a State matter where the States may regulate CCW and that bans on concealed carry may be upheld.

...with 600+ years of "history and tradition" to support it.

This is a national concealed carry reciprocity "advocacy" thread...

...the implications of which are:

1. Dissolution of a State right.
2. Further increasing of Federal Government power.
3. At a minimum, the creation of national concealed carry database and registry - to facilitate LEO / Bureaucratic checks and monitoring of those encountered carrying concealed out and about in public.
4. High potentional of abuse for #3 as with pretty much any database or registry.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-14-2019, 8:46 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 935
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The counter argument is that, at the national level, the screws are much tighter on FedGov with respect to 2A than that of the states, which has yet to be fully fleshed.

If a national CCW law was proposed, which could even be via enforcement of the BoR / 2A, via sections 1 and 5 of 14A, they wouldn’t even have to claim commerce clause power on the guns.

As to abuse, given that the 2A more acutely regulates FedGov than the states, if the courts function normally, big IF, then the dynamic of national politics to slow the adoption of anti-constitutional laws is of benefit. Already we have NICS, and if GCA is here to stay, a combined personal FFL/CCW license that would let me buy, retail, or carry in any state, might be worth it. Any database can be abused, but if SCOTUS refuses to protect the right to freely buy and sell weapons privately, without a BG check, it’s only a matter of time before every state requires it. In that sense, it won’t matter then that there is a database, practically, as the right will have been diminished under regulation.

This all presupposes that SCOTUS continues to find CCW as a regulated activity as opposed to the actual right. I’m pretty sure were going to get shall issue permitting for whichever mode of carry is generally allowed, via NYSRPA. So, true constitutional carry still seems an unlikely scenario.

Given the options, National CCW may be the better choice.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:17 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,252
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Heller v. DC

Cited and reference quite a few bear / carry cases going back 200 years. One was a SCOTUS decison . . .

Most were State decisions.

Most were cases involving someone bearing or carrying out and about in public - on the road, going about one's business, shopping, etc.

Now...to avoid turning this into another open carry v. concealed carry thread...

I'll just keep it short...

Heller v. DC recognized CCW as a State matter where the States may regulate CCW and that bans on concealed carry may be upheld.

...with 600+ years of "history and tradition" to support it.

This is a national concealed carry reciprocity "advocacy" thread...

...the implications of which are:

1. Dissolution of a State right.
2. Further increasing of Federal Government power.
3. At a minimum, the creation of national concealed carry database and registry - to facilitate LEO / Bureaucratic checks and monitoring of those encountered carrying concealed out and about in public.
4. High intentional of abuse for #3 as with pretty much any database or registry.

=8-)
Understood. And on the end result of not supporting a "national CCW" I agree.

Let's set aside concealed vs open carry as that is a finer point of discussion. The issue you have raised is carrying in public in some fashion. I don't see that Heller makes that explicit in their decision. Much as I would prefer it to do so.

Plaintiff Heller was seeking relief for possession of a handgun in the home. He was not seeking relief allowing for carry of a firearm in public in any fashion. The court's decision was that Heller had a right to possess a fully functional firearm in the home for self defense. In Heller, one could take the position that the state may issue a single handgun to Heller and his core right to self-defense in the home would be satisfied.

While I may agree with Justice Thomas, that a right should exist which does more than allow a person to possess a firearm on his walk between the bedroom and the kitchen, that wasn't within the scope of the case brought before them nor was it in their decision.

Caetano seems to me more inviting of your position. The plaintiff possessed the "arm" outside the home. The court referenced "bearing arms" which one could suppose implies being outside the home. Caetano is overall much stronger on possession of an arm outside the home; and that the state may not prohibit doing so in some fashion, whether concealed or openly.

Caetano was actually a very encouraging read, especially with respect to implications of how SCOTUS would view semi-automatic firearms and it's harsh dismissal of much of the lower court's positions.

Last edited by dfletcher; 11-14-2019 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:20 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
The counter argument is that, at the national level, the screws are much tighter on FedGov with respect to 2A than that of the states, which has yet to be fully fleshed.

If a national CCW law was proposed, which could even be via enforcement of the BoR / 2A, via sections 1 and 5 of 14A, they wouldn’t even have to claim commerce clause power on the guns.

As to abuse, given that the 2A more acutely regulates FedGov than the states, if the courts function normally, big IF, then the dynamic of national politics to slow the adoption of anti-constitutional laws is of benefit. Already we have NICS, and if GCA is here to stay, a combined personal FFL/CCW license that would let me buy, retail, or carry in any state, might be worth it. Any database can be abused, but if SCOTUS refuses to protect the right to freely buy and sell weapons privately, without a BG check, it’s only a matter of time before every state requires it. In that sense, it won’t matter then that there is a database, practically, as the right will have been diminished under regulation.

This all presupposes that SCOTUS continues to find CCW as a regulated activity as opposed to the actual right. I’m pretty sure were going to get shall issue permitting for whichever mode of carry is generally allowed, via NYSRPA. So, true constitutional carry still seems an unlikely scenario.

Given the options, National CCW may be the better choice.
And the counter argument is . . .

Open Carry being properly recognized as the natural exercise of the right...as cited in Heller v. DC.

...no licensing needed, therefore no database of licensees needed and the abuse pretty much a local matter.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:22 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Understood. And on the end result of not supporting a "national CCW" I agree.

Let's set aside concealed vs open carry as that is a finer point of discussion. The issue you have raised is carrying in public in some fashion. I don't see that Heller makes that explicit in their decision. Much as I would prefer it to do so.

Plaintiff Heller was seeking relief for possession of a handgun in the home. He was not seeking relief allowing for carry of a firearm in public in any fashion. The court's decision was that Heller had a right to possess a fully functional firearm in the home for self defense. In Heller, one could take the position that the state may issue a single handgun to Heller and his core right to self-defense in the home would be satisfied.

While I may agree with Justice Thomas, that a right should exist which does more than allow a person to possess a firearm on his walk between the bedroom and the kitchen, that wasn't within the scope of the case brought before them nor was it in their decision.

Caetano seems to me more inviting of your position. The plaintiff possessed the "arm" outside the home. The court referenced "bearing arms" which one could suppose implies being outside the home. Caetano is overall much stronger on possession of an arm outside the home; and that the state may not prohibit doing so in some fashion, whether concealed or openly.

Caetano was actually a very encouraging read, especially with respect to implications of how SCOTUS would view semi-automatic firearms and it's harsh dismissal of much of the lower court's positions.
I'm not alone in realizing that the impact of Caetano is huge...quieter, but huge.

Chances are pretty good the impact of Caetano is going to come into play in NYSRPA v NYC.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:54 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 935
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Open carry as the right could have grave consequences to modern CCW. Be careful what you ask for.

To my knowledge, there are no states that ban CCW, and only allow OC. However, if SCOTUS recognizes OC as the right, and still that CCW may be regulated, then those that want / need CCW may still be denied. History supports that view, but is that today’s reality? The Constitution does not differentiate, and SCOTUS’ default is to demur to the Legislative when Constitutionally vague.

I could still see the need for CCW legislation even if SCOTUS defines OC as the right.

A hypothetical bill in CA could switch to permitted OC under a potential NYSRPA decision and forego CCW entirely for serfs. What would you think of that? Crazy, but this is CA after all.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-15-2019, 1:06 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
This is a national concealed carry reciprocity "advocacy" thread...

...the implications of which are:

1. Dissolution of a State right.
2. Further increasing of Federal Government power.
3. At a minimum, the creation of national concealed carry database and registry - to facilitate LEO / Bureaucratic checks and monitoring of those encountered carrying concealed out and about in public.
4. High intentional of abuse for #3 as with pretty much any database or registry.
FIFY by striking all of the ridiculous nonsense suppositions included. Read the bill before making up crap not included. Such as "National CCW".


Quote:
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (01/09/2019)
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019

This bill allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms.

A qualified individual must (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid state-issued concealed carry permit, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence.


REMINDER............TITLE OF THREAD IS.

Quote:
S 69, Cornyn - concealed carry reciprocity 2019
All of your supposed "implications" have no basis in reality. The US has Drivers License reciprocity between states. And yet NONE of YOUR IMPLICATIONS exist in relation to it.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-15-2019, 7:25 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
FIFY by striking all of the ridiculous nonsense suppositions included. Read the bill before making up crap not included. Such as "National CCW".






REMINDER............TITLE OF THREAD IS.



All of your supposed "implications" have no basis in reality. The US has Drivers License reciprocity between states. And yet NONE of YOUR IMPLICATIONS exist in relation to it.
Come on now Mr. Pacrat . . .

I'm pretty sure you do not live under a rock or in a dungeon. And I'm pretty certain you are not suffering from amnesia.

I'm pretty sure you are well aware that multi-state CCW monitoring via State agreement to link CCW databases for CCW checks for a specific region of the US has already been abused.

I'm pretty certain you are aware of the continuous pressure to make ALL CCW databases - individual or regional - publicly accessible by those politicians and lobbies with a political ax to grind.

National Reciprocity would take it to the national level.

I would also like to think that you are not naive.


=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 11-15-2019 at 7:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-15-2019, 1:49 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't see a problem with a CCW database because it just shows you have a right to carry but not how many guns you may own. Bottom line is this because some states will not allow people to defend themselves while in those states something needs to be done about it. Also states rights are fine to a point but when any state passes laws that conflict with constitutional rights that should not be allowed to stand.

Last edited by R Dale; 11-15-2019 at 1:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-15-2019, 2:50 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I don't see a problem with a CCW database because it just shows you have a right to carry but not how many guns you may own. Bottom line is this because some states will not allow people to defend themselves while in those states something needs to be done about it. Also states rights are fine to a point but when any state passes laws that conflict with constitutional rights that should not be allowed to stand.
You need to correct a fundamental error in the above.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-15-2019, 5:08 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
You need to correct a fundamental error in the above.

=8-|
Why don't you state what you think the error is?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-15-2019, 5:13 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 237
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Why don't you state what you think the error is?
Registration leads to confiscation.


=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-15-2019, 5:47 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Registration leads to confiscation.


=8-)
Yes I know that but we are talking about a CCW, just because you have a CCW does not mean the federal gov will know what guns you may own. Look we are way past making a big deal about confiscation the gov already has the ability to find out about all the guns legally purchased from a FFL. Also the gov would not be pushing all these red flag laws on national level if they did not think they had the means to take peoples guns.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:09 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Come on now Mr. Pacrat . . .

I'm pretty sure you do not live under a rock or in a dungeon. And I'm pretty certain you are not suffering from amnesia.

I'm pretty sure you are well aware that multi-state CCW monitoring via State agreement to link CCW databases for CCW checks for a specific region of the US has already been abused.

I'm pretty certain you are aware of the continuous pressure to make ALL CCW databases - individual or regional - publicly accessible by those politicians and lobbies with a political ax to grind.

National Reciprocity would take it to the national level.

I would also like to think that you are not naive.


=8-|
Deflection, obsfucation, and the typical response of failing miserably at factually supporting your opinion or premise.

Just more "mrrabbit pellets' NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG FOLKS.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-16-2019, 9:53 AM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 491
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
You need to correct a fundamental error in the above.

=8-|
Mrrabbit, you clearly have not closely read all of:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/408/238.html
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/JeffersonStateLaser/

Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-16-2019, 8:35 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wchutt View Post
Mrrabbit, you clearly have not closely read all of:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/408/238.html
Concealed is regulated as a privilege...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.