Well, I’d hope that wasn’t the outcome, but I don’t see how the Supreme Court gets around Congress, if Congress passes a law that doesn’t violate the U. S. Constitution.
I don’t know how California gets around this either.
If Congress says all states must abide by other state’s carry permits, then it’s the law of the land.
The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be cited, if Congress comes down with legitimate legislation.
The Constitution doesn’t say concealed carry shall be prohibited.
Congress’s legislation still has to fall under one of its enumerated powers under the Constitution, which I find a bit problematic. I suppose it could fall under the Commerce Clause, but only under the expansive post-1937 interpretation that many conservatives have properly railed against for years.
It could also fall under the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment, though I don’t see why “reciprocity” falls under that clause without violating equal protection of the laws. Under this bill, a Vermont resident gets to carry in New York with nothing more than a Vermont driver’s license, a Texas resident gets to carry in New York only if he has an LTC, and both have a greater right to carry in New York than the vast majority of New York’s own citizens.
It’s good for 2nd Amendment, not great for federalism. It would be cleaner just to pass a law under the Enforcement Clause providing that no state may prohibit public carry except under a “shall issue” permit scheme. Better yet to just prohibit any restrictions on public carry, but the political will isn’t there yet.