[neverdem]

I don't agree. You don't pay for a right, too many states are may issue, and too many people freak out with open carry, especially in cities.

IIRC, the essay got 75 comments at the source.

[Carry_Okie]

I am concerned about FedGov exercising powers of any kind related to gun ownership. Although it is wonderful to enforce protection of an absolute right, the power to enforce is the power to violate. The unique thing about the Feds is that once they violate a right there is no legal recourse (one could obviously engage in armed rebellion, but...). So I’m not quite so thrilled with pushing this kind of statute forward because that kind of latitude in the hands of the left is a perilous thing indeed.

[alloysteel]

“Congress shall make no law....”

Which some 95% of the time, is a pretty good guideline.

The other 5% of the time, they should listen to the constituents who sent them there, and treat the legal code accordingly.

A proliferation of laws, regulations, and arcane specific bills that almost qualify for a “bill of attainder”, a gotcha for certain persons, making their very presence, whether they have committed some crime or not, anathema for the authorities.

The Tenth Amendment is in place for a reason.

[And2TheRepublic]

If we just followed the Constitution, we would not need such a law.

“...shall not be infringed.”

Needing a permit to carry a weapon is an infringement. Being unable to open carry is an infringement.

Its unconstitutional for States to have these kinds of laws, let alone Congress enacting one.

[xzins]

I have been told that, while “concealed carry” requires permission, “open carry” does not. Does anyone know if this is true?

Can Wyatt Earp strap on a 6-shooter and walk down main street as long as it’s open for all to see?

[atomic_dog]

Concealed carry is a good idea, and so is reciprocity when states enact it voluntarily — but this is a bad idea, as it goes beyond the proper functions of the federal government.

Let's leave aside the Second Amendment for a moment and examine Article IV. Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. (emphasis mine)

It sound to me exactly like the proper functions of the federal government under the US Constitution.

[Repeal The 17th]

Is there some federal law that says Tennessee has to recognize my Georgia drivers license?
Just a curious thought...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I saw what was going to happen from a long way off.

Reciprocity agreements between the states are a states prerogative, and having the federal government try to force reciprocity is inviting the camel into the tent.

Just today, in the senate, a bill was introduced to force reciprocity with respect to homosexual marriage. The Democrats figure on playing that off against the Houses gun reciprocity bill. “You vote for ours and we’ll vote for yours.”

So sorry, it’s just a bad idea to invite the federal camel into the tent. As much as you might like the convenience of camel milk, you’ll have to deal a lot more with camel poop.

[goldstategop]

I don’t agree. Its a stupid argument. Under the 14th Amendment, Congress has the undisputed power to pass a federal law to ensure the unimpeded exercise of the rights guaranteed to Americans and that includes the 2nd Amendment. States’ rights are not absolute. And Congress has the power to ensure all states grant reciprocal treatment to the laws, judicial proceedings and records of other states. Robert Verbruggen thinks the only group of people whom states should be permitted to discriminate at will against are gun owners. Either Congress can ensure every one can freely exercise their rights or there’s no point to the Constitution. By the way, states’ rights has always been a hoary doctrine used to justify slavery and then the wholesale denial of constitutional rights to certain Americans based on their race. It won’t wash - not in this day and age.

[neverdem]

Second Amendment and Fast & Furious update

If you remember the vote on the Thune Amendment, a vote on national reciprocity for concealed carry privileges is going to put a bunch of rats in the Senate in a bind.

Holder: Blame Fast and Furious on Someone Else

Grassley to DOJ: ‘Longer You Stonewall, The More Egg on You're Going to Have on Your Face'

Senate grills Holder on Fast and Furious gun-trafficking sting

[Still Thinking]

While the Supreme Court has recognized a right of interstate travel, surely it doesn’t protect carrying items you’re not licensed to carry in the states you’re traveling to. And while Congress is notorious for abusing the Commerce Clause, I’m not seeing how concealed-carry permit holders’ not being able to carry while traveling “substantially affects” interstate commerce.

Find me ANY other time you found the Congress Clause to conflict with any federal notion, particularly if it concerns some liberal statist wet dream, and I'll take your "article" seriously. Otherwise, STFU, statist scum!

[ExGeeEye]

IMHO there aought to be NO "public policy exception" to a Constitutional Right.

Nor a "compelling state interest".

[stevie_d_64]

I agree with you...It has alway been a rub to me that if I want to carry a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes, that I have a unalienable, moral right to do so as stated in the Second Amendment, that that right is granted by an authority higher than ANY government instituted amoung men (and women) in this country...

Every chance that the Texas legislature tries to reduce, or limit the feduciary responsibility for Texans to obtain this states CHL “license”, I support with the upmost enthusiasm and fervor...

When I had to stop at the border of California in Yuma, and disarm and render the carry piece I had on me usless away from any semblance of readiness, I wanted to throw up...

I think its due time we get in the face of those that want to take away such rights, to those of us that understand and value the gift and defense of life, in the ability to take a life to protect it...

My last statement sounds ironic, but it is a truth we need to embrace, because we already do it everytime we take on the responsibility and more important, to be accountable for our actions when we do exercise our right to keep and bear arms...

The Federal argument to this issue is so simple, they have to do this to make it seem like it is a difficult decision to ALLOW us to utilize a precident to recognize these damn licenses that we HAVE to buy to exercise such a natural moral right...

The opposition knows for a fact that if we do get this commerce clause recognition of these licenses, that the Genie is out of the bottle, and it is very difficult to put it back in if some force of this government feels it is necessary to do so...

The attempt to take back this extention would be the equivalent to reversing the Emancipation Proclamation...Imagine the absolute travesty that would be...And I would fight that effort with my life...

Time to pony up people...We don’t get chances like this, especially with the people running the show these days...

We know without a doubt what Obama would do with this if it crosses his desk...Lets press the issue anyway...Force him to prove to us what we already know...Give whomever is going to defeat this administration some ammunition for the next election cycle...

All hands on deck...This is not a drill!!!

[Joe Brower]

[ctdonath2]

even if the traveler’s home state has very different criteria for awarding a permit.

Thing is...they don't. They all have the same fundamental criteria: register, and don't be a criminal. The differences stem from varying degrees and tactics for infringing on the fundamental right, and thus are indefensible.

Every state that issues possession/carry permits does so contingent upon, at core, a criminal background check. This is rendered nigh unto moot by the federal NICS check, which does the same thing. Some states may dig into more records in an impassioned attempt to suppress the right. Some states may tack on other criteria such as training (to wit: "The Four Rules" and basic mechanical operation of a point-and-click interface, rendered as complex and time-consuming as possible), background checks (as if some applicant might not know three people willing to vouch for him), usage restrictions (now that he's got it, if he's going to abuse it a few words on paper won't stop him), and other high-horse heavy-handed tactics for discouraging people from an enumerated inalienable right. Fact is, regardless of the differences in licensing, so long as there IS a license there is NOTHING of substance rendering an out-of-state permit inferior to an in-state one.

I have a carry permit for NY and GA. Short of "Constitutional carry", there is no meaningful difference. Both were issued subject to FBI and other background checks, fingerprints included. Both are monitored for legality. Both allow carry/transport of dangerous machines which are, for all practical purposes, fungible. Both regard objects which are already subject to strict commerce regulations. Short of a differing collection of hoops to jump thru to obtain and retain one, there is no practical difference.

And that leaves "Constitutional carry" states. There is no reason Vermont should be left out. Fact is, the whole point of documented licensing for carry/possession is an unconstitutional preemptive presumption of guilt over innocence. While the famous case excusing felons from CCW registration on grounds of 5th Amendment violation was overturned, methinks the premise remains true: save for a vanishingly small margin, anyone who applies for a permit is exactly who should NOT be required to have one, and anyone who should be refused one (i.e.: convicted felons et al) has an enumerated right against self-incrimination - ergo the whole process is pointless. So residents of Vermont, Alaska, and Wyoming who would, as residents elsewhere, have no trouble getting a permit as required (save for malicious suppression of rights) are as normal American citizens due the presumption of innocence, have already been in all likelihood already subject to relevant criminal background checks, and thus as citizens enjoy the right (at minimum) to exercise their RKBA in any state insofar as any licensed resident thereof may, having been extended full faith and credit in their home state's right to possess lawful items obtained in a lawful manner, and carry them in a lawful manner according to the host state's fair regulations.

That a Leftist/socialist/oppressive legal doctrine has been entrenched for a prolonged period does not render it a Conservative value.

[William Tell]

From the article: "As the Supreme Court noted in its Heller decision(PDF), bans on concealed carry do not run afoul of the Second Amendment ..."

Anti-gunners love to read a lot into some pretty simple statements from Heller.

Here's what I found:
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This is a statement which is historically accurate; that is, "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld". That statement is not a prediction of what would be decided in a future case.

Here in Breyer's dissent IS a prediction:
But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws—prohibitions on concealed weapons, forfeiture by criminals of the Second Amendment right, prohibitions on firearms in certain locales, and governmental regulation of commercial firearm sales—whose constitutionality under a strict scrutiny standard would be far from clear.

What Breyer is saying is that a "strict scrutiny" standard, which is the only standard consistent with such a fundamental right, would likely not permit the banning of concealed firearms. Given that there has been no "blood running in the streets" in any of the majority of states which permit concealed carry, it is ludicrous to suggest that any state, or the federal government, could establish a "compelling interest" in banning such carry.

The anti-gunners, including those on the Supreme Court, know full well that Heller and McDonald spell the death knell of gun control in the United States.

[M Kehoe]

You don't pay for a right,...

Yes, and no. All too often, you pay for a right in blood.

5.56mm

[archy]

The only other justification for the law I can even think of is the “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to respect each others’ “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” — but this case would seem to fall under the “public-policy exception.”

So then, there's no problem with a state whose handgun carry licenses aren't recognized by another state thereby denying recognition of that second state's driver's licenses and vehicle license plates?

I predict that the tow truck services around Yellowstone National Park may soon be doing a booming business.