Posted on 04/22/2018 6:39:16 PM PDT by aimhigh
The nation's police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative, sending a letter to leaders of Congress on Thursday opposing a bill that would allow gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state to carry their concealed weapons in all 50 states.
The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States, and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans targets the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act," which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at messenger-inquirer.com ...
Chiefs are almost always leftist activists: e.g., Joseph McNamara. The scum assiduously rises to the top.
The police are not our friends. San Jose Convention Center: turkey shoot. Rank and file follow orders.
This isn’t something the states retained for themselves. The 2nd Amendment’s “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear.
These Police Chiefs are not our friends.
They think disarming Law Abiding Citizens has something to do with reducing Crime, therefore they are not only our Enemies, they are ignorant of their role in a Civilized Society composed of Free Men.
Sure it is. If a state decides they don't want people carrying firearms in courthouses or jails or schools or sporting events then they have the power to prohibit it under the 10th Amendment. If they want to ban felons from owning firearms then they have the power to do so under the 10th Amendment. If they want to become Constitutional carry or if they want to require training to get a concealed carry permit then they have the power to do so under the 10th Amendment. The Heller decision said that states cannot prohibit a citizen from keeping a firearm in their own home. But the same decision said that reasonable restrictions are within the state's power to enact. Under the 10th Amendment.
It’s going to depend on interpretations of “reasonable”. I do think an argument can be made for the “bear” part of keep and bear arms. Some states are so restrictive they make it illegal to even have in the car for anything other than going to the range or the gunsmith.
I am more concerned with patently unreasonable conditions like California sets which require any new handgun to be able to stamp the bullet with ID even though the technology doesn’t exist. Furthermore if the design of an older model is changed at all then they claim it is a “new” design and add it to the ban list.
The USSC’s reasoning in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it was not “reasonably related to the need for a militia”. ie it was a nonmilitary-type weapon. OK. Fair enough. By that rationale, every single restriction on or ban on semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Sorry, BOR, instead of BOA. Spellcheck is a sinister beast at times.
And it's within the prevue of the states to make those restrictions; under the 10th Amendment.
I am more concerned with patently unreasonable conditions like California sets which require any new handgun to be able to stamp the bullet with ID even though the technology doesn’t exist. Furthermore if the design of an older model is changed at all then they claim it is a “new” design and add it to the ban list.
Unreasonable? Perhaps. Unconstitutional? Possibly, if the required technology really doesn't exist. A requirement like that basically makes gun ownership illegal altogether, which the Heller decision struck down. But if it does exist then California can place the restrictions.
The USSC’s reasoning in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it was not “reasonably related to the need for a militia”. ie it was a nonmilitary-type weapon. OK. Fair enough. By that rationale, every single restriction on or ban on semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines should be struck down as unconstitutional.
You may be right on that. It needs to work its way through the courts.
The McDonald case mirrored the Heller decision in that the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It does not prevent reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership being enacted by the state or local governments. Basically neither Heller nor McDonald guarantees a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.
Homosexual marriage was forced through the courts by requiring reciprocity regarding official state acts. Mass permitted such marriages and then the newlyweds set out into other states to demand recognition. There is really no legitimate reason for a stated right to be treated any more stringently.
Point is, the 2nd Amendment is basically universal. McDonald allowed the CC/State infringements to face the 2nd’s power since this is now incorporated, just like any other Fed regulation.
Most “chiefs” are political hacks. Ask the sheriffs.
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.