Posted on 08/17/2017 6:44:39 AM PDT by Mafe
With a Republican in the White House, the anti-gun-control lobby smells a bit of blood in the water. Now is the time, they suggest, to pass national gun-licensing reciprocity laws forcing gun-restrictive states to recognize permits issued by gun-permissive states.
The way this is phrased sounds nice and totally unobjectionable: this bill sounds like it's just saying people should be left alone.
The problem, however, is that the drive for mandated reciprocity is essentially a drive to increase federal involvement and federal control in the realm of gun policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
The 2nd Amendment already covers it! Some states choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment!
Really? States must accept driver's licenses and marriage licenses from other states. Why not guns, which have a specific BoR's amendment!
"Gun laws" are centralized by the Constitution:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
ALL "gun control laws" are unconstitutional.
I see three key concepts regarding the Constitution:
1) Here is the stuff that cannot be touched by any level of government within the United States — we call this the Bill of Right. Neither Federal nor State governments can inhibit the people in these areas.
2) Here is the stuff that the Federal government is supposed to do — this is the body of the Constitution. The Federal government isn’t supposed to do much — their responsibilities can be listed on just a few pages.
3) If it’s not specifically listed in the Constitution, either as 1) Don’t touch this or else as 2) The Feds have responsibility, then the powers devolve to the states and they can choose to control or not to control other stuff — this is explained in the 10th Amendment.
Guns are covered in 1) but the stupid government lost sight of that a long time ago. “Shall not be infringed” is too complicated for them.
States must accept driver’s licenses and marriage licenses from other states.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
That was ‘funny’. Back before it was ‘fashionable’ states like NY were screaming that we ALL had to accept their sovereignty when it came to issuing marriage licenses etc yet they told us to ‘take a hike’ when it came to recognizing our Carry Permits.
MAYBE if the states would have balked back then..I think some did but the SC or Fed stepped in and agreed with NY (whoever) on BOTH sides of the coin.
Could imagine if they thought they could get away with it states would force one to get ANY license from them, if for the money if nothing else (Better not give them dummies any ideas).
As easy as the words can be parsed to fit the meaning to ones liking, the 2nd A still gives more of a right to carry a gun than the first does in regards to abortion, drivers licenses, burning flags etc etc etc
I would prefer waiting until Ginsberg and Kennedy are replaced, and then have the Supremes rule that the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, with all restrictions subject to the “strict scrutiny” test.
Thus instantly imposing Constitutional Carry on all 50 states, followed by the Trump Justice Department indicting any official or judge attempting to restrict gun rights, under civil rights laws.
Which is exactly the way it was originally intended....to put fetters on the NATIONAL government, not the states. Like it or not, that is the thing the FF intended. They considered the state governments to be more defending of citizens rights than the FedGov. Legally, this changed with the Civil War and passage of the "reconstruction amendments", applying the full Federal Bill of Rights to the states.
Well in that case I’m glad that happened, because I don’t believe you can trust government at ANY level to protect your rights. The founders were a little naive on that one.
“Mises institute of AUSTRIAN economics”????
Why do you think that an AUSTRIAN economic think tank is interested in future American gun laws? Which firearm manufacturer(s) based in Austria would be interested for possible future American economic gains? With whom within the American federal government are they currying favors??
Federal concealed carry reciprocity laws are a stretch, considering that there has been a lot of work performed between the States, for THEM to recognize the other States’ concealed carry licenses.
For a comprehensive listing, here is the list from Pennsylvania:
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Media_and_Resources/Firearm_Reciprocity_Agreements/
I believe that a ‘federal’ reciprocity register, enacted under a Republican administration, would be used under a future Democrap administration, to the detriment of all applicants.
What a diaper load this entire article is.
First of all, the so-called ‘legal experts’ cited in the article somehow do not agree with the concept of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states.
That’s all well and good to stomp your feet and throw a hissy fit, but until a constitutional amendment is passed to overturn it or another ruling is subsequently made, a SCOTUS ruling is the final say, like it or not. SCOTUS in McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment on the states.
Second, mandatory reciprocity does not take away states rights. It simply says that any state must treat an out-of-state permit exactly the same as they treat in-state permits. If a state does not issue permits to its own citizens, then it does not have to recognize permits from out of state citizens. If it does issue permits to its citizens, then out of state citizens must follow all of the same laws, rule, regulations, and restrictions as the in-state permit.
Third, since everything else under the Sun that the federal government has done was justified under the Commerce Clause, mandatory CPL license reciprocity can easily also be justified under the same clause, perhaps even more so given our mobile society.
Ryan McMaken can politely go pound sand.
You realize that “Austrian economics” refers to Austrian economists like Hayek and others? It’s just a term for those types of thinking, not a particular country or national interest.
We seem never tired of the repetition of the mantra that concealed carry permits are contrary to the constitution. But do we think our government is constrained by that piece of paper? In what dream is this true? And how does saying this ever make it true?
If one wants to conceal a weapon without a permit, please, one may shut up and do so with a clear conscience. But unless one is going to storm the jail and start shooting guards whenever anyone is arrested on a gun charge, one is not being consistent with the political philosophy and is admitting that one knows what this country is really like.
WARNING: Do not think that this person, who says, “The bill of rights never applied to the states,” is going to pay the legal costs of your defense if you get caught with a handgun in DC! McMaken is not even going to visit you in jail, unless you can figure a way to make him think that it will get him more hits on his website. You could have him come and preach his little sermonette outside your jail window so you can feel like you too are a “constitutionalist”.
The idea is to oppose national reciprocity as if that were faithfulness to the constitution. It is an effective ploy as conservatives seem nonplussed before it, and quite sinister as it effectively denies us the means to protect our selves in the name of our sacred founding documents!
The think tank’s title states “Austrian” economics.
Why should i have to go find the “contact information”, when i’m not interested in writing a letter to them?
If, indeed, they are ‘based in America’, then wtf should they mention another country? To me, that spells abunch of busy-body Europeans messing with American things.
“I can’t get past the part about the Bill of Rights not applying to the states. If it was never intended to apply to all levels of government, then what was the point?”
If a person licensed to carry in one state is legal on one side of an artificial line, and is not legal to do the same on the other side of that line, then SOMEONE is infringing upon his/her rights. THAT is why the 14th Amendment was passed - to ensure that EVERYONE, in ALL states, was protected by the terms of the Bill of Rights.
The Mises people are WRONG on this issue.
No, I don’t. John Kenneth Gilbraith, maybe.
Yes, and no.
I present Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Seems clear to me that they intended the Constitution to apply to the States as well - and that the States agreed to this by ratifying the Constitution.
However, as has been pointed out, the Bill of Rights is mostly a list of things that the FedGov must keeps its dirty paws off of, and pointedly states that, essentially, "anything we didn't specially state the FedGov was required or allowed to do is within the jurisdiction of the States, or the People." (Of course, as was feared, the problem with enumeration is that there are those who will insist that it is an all-inclusive, instead of a representative, set.)
Now then, compare the language of the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law" - versus the 2nd - "shall not be infringed". Given the Supremacy Clause, I submit that the 2nd is a more stringent prohibition not only on the FedGov, but on the States as well than is the 1st.
Your thoughts?
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.