Posted on 12/04/2017 4:02:05 PM PST by The Pack Knight
It’s clear to me that as long as any residents have a ccw permit, this bill will force all of the state to allow out of staters to carry in CA. It’s really hard for me to believe our dem controlled legislature wouldn’t vote to ban all ccw permits. BTW, I’m in Kern County where permit issuance is nearly “shall issue.”
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.
I don’t find fault with your logic.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see that happen.
With all the weird ass violent acts in public these days, it concerns me that perps could and would arm, but honest law abiding citizens could not.
If you violate and safe a life, you’ll be placed in prison for it, and prevented from owning a weapon ever again.
I think your comments are logical. It isn’t worthy of objecting to on any point I noticed.
It does concern me that citizens are sitting ducks in areas where crime WILL break out at any time.
Citizens have a right to be their own last defense against death.
I know I’m arguing with the choir here.
Rush Limbaugh used to point out that the rats would never actually fix a problem because they wouldn’t have the problem to run on in the future. Never to my knowledge did he turn that the other way around and point out the exact same thing out about the gop.
Big picture, we’re being played. We get tossed a well gnawed bone every now and then and that’s about it.
Politics is a scam and we’re suckers for playing.
I think you are. As someone already said, there are no "no issue" states. And this bill greatly expands the freedom to travel while armed. My permit, for example, is not recognized by any other state but mine. There is single state permit accepted by all states, and there are a number of states that accept no others.
The sc makes its own law in its own time. They sat on Miller for what, 60-70 years? The constitutional rights of the peasantry seems to be pretty low on their list of priorities.
I am concerned as to what NICS-FIX has in it besides fixing reporting from the Feds. No way that antis support it so loudly without something else, something hidden.
Yup, that’s my county.
Dont forget CA and MA.
Fedgov has no problem unconstitutionally mandating gay marriage nationally where it is a states rights issue.
Right to carry is explicitly in the constitution and fedgov refuses to treat it like their overreach on gay marriage or even drivers licenses reciprocity.
...and HI and NY.
Love the motto on the patrol car. Good sense of humor there.
Agreed. And marriage licenses to straights too...
It is interesting the way the FedGov uses selective (unequal) enforcement.
Exactly. Well stated.
Yeah, all of Hawaii is bad. It is virtually impossible to carry legally there.
I didnt include NY because new yorkers outside of NYC seem to be able to carry, at least thats what I hear them say about it.
Note that this bill does NOT require a state to allow you to carry if it does not allow its own citizens to carry. While it requires "may issue" states to honor permits from "shall issue" states, it does NOT require a "no issue" state to do so. There are no "no issue" states right now, but I'll bet there will be a push in some of these states to go back to "no issue" in order to defeat reciprocity under this bill. I'm not sure I like the idea of incentivizing a rollback of gun rights when so much progress has been made even in anti-gun states.
Yes, I believe you are missing the point entirely. Illinois was the last state that outright prohibited concealed carry, but thanks to Moore v. Madigan, they now have a shall issue concealed carry system, because they were afraid to have the Supreme Court rule on their case. Because of Moore v. Madigan, no state in the Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin, Illinois, or Indiana) can revert to a no-issue policy.
The same happened in Wrenn v. District of Columbia, where their 'may issue' scheme was challenged in court, found unconstitutional by the appeals court, and the District decided, after much urging by anti-gun entities, not to risk a ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of concealed carry. Instead they agreed to abide by the must issue order of the court. D.C. can not even revert to may-issue, let alone no-issue because of this ruling.
Any attempt by a state to completely eliminate all forms of concealed carry that was not immediately overturned by the appeals court would force a Supreme Court ruling in the matter, and would in all likelihood result in all 57 states becomming must-issue states, which is something that states such as Kalifornia, New Jersey, and New York will do almost anything to avoid.
So no, I don't see much danger of incentivizing a rollback of carry laws in states that are currently de facto no-issue states in practice.
The only provision I see getting taken out of the bill is the provision that states must honor out-of-state permits issued to their own residents.
NYS is a pain, but doable with money and patience. Same with Cali outside of LA and SF. NJ and HI are all but impossible.
The text of Culberson’s “NICS Fix” bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text
I haven’t seen anything in it that bothers me terribly—mostly administrative paper shuffling and some pork for local governments in the form of “grants” to fix their NICS reporting. I don’t see a whole lot of “fixing,” though I’ll admit I have not read it super-closely yet.
It does include a provision requiring the Bureau of Justice Statistics to provide a report on how many times bump stocks have been used in crimes in the United States. I imagine the answer will be 1 or zero, depending on whether the Las Vegas shooter actually used his bump stocks.
There is also another version introduced by Henry Cuellar (D-TX), but that is not the one up for vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.