Could National reciprocity of concealed-carry permits kill the gun bill?

[8ball]

IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted.

I hope you are right, but the current political environment has created far more uncertainty on the result than a year ago. Can you imagine the media and political backlash if the Supreme Court overturned any gun laws right now? Beyond that issue, you know that the hardcore anti-gun states like NY and CA will drag the fight out in court for years. IL is already claiming they can ignore the Federal court ruling. I just can't see them folding their tents so easily.

 

[Father of four]

9 again to rule/judge over 300+ million. Yep, I am sure that's what the founding fathers intended for this country. To go from 1 king to 9.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

that almost sounds like an anti talking

That's like saying I'd let someone cut off my left foot if they gave me a new boot for my right foot.

Just because they (the .gov) are offering something good doesn't mean the whole bill is good. It's how they sucker us in to their compromises.... Sure, we'll give up something (temporarily), get what we want then snatch the other thing away.

I've seen the .gov do this kind of thing too many times to believe it. (The Black Hills belonged to the Souix "as long as the sun shall shine"...or until white man finds gold) (Retire from the military and you'll get free medical care for you and your family for life)...I could go on and on, but what it boils down to is this, what the .gov "gives" the .gov can take away.

 

[John H]

A true reciprocity law would only do what we already have with our drivers licenses and automobile licenses. If you are visiting any state, you still have to abide by that state's laws, but you and your vehicle are covered by the state you reside in. The other state, and the Federal government have not, and do not, try to dictate to the other states how a driver or automobile is to be licensed in other states. The feds did try to make a "uniform" truckers license by use of the commerce clause, but in the end, that trucker's license is still a state issued license and subject to the individual state's laws.

I have no problem with this kind of law. The US Constitution says that individual states must recognize the lawful acts of the other states and congress can enforce that recognition through the legislative process. However, the national government has not been given the right to dictate what those individual state laws are.

Secondly, this may actually be an end run around Shumer, Feinstein and co. It may just kill the bill, but from the other side leaving it rather than by gathering in the pro 2A votes.

Since when has that stopped them before.


Have you seen what the feds try to dictate to the states about driver licenses, in the last few years. Same thing would happen to CPL's.

Letting the Feds get there finger in is not good.

 

[John H]

The feds did try to make a "uniform" truckers license by use of the commerce clause, but in the end, that trucker's license is still a state issued license and subject to the individual state's laws.

It might be issued by the state but with very heavy federal influence. They are all linked now, so what happens in one state affects you every where, gone are the days of getting multiple state DL's.

 

[tdocz]

Dont fool yourselves. The Interstate Commerce Clause would surely be invoked, were national concealed carry reciprocity passed, to govern, read control, magazine size, caliber and bore length, etc. Sure the states define their own driver's licensure reqs but the feds establish national highway speed limits, trucking load capacities, number of trailers per tractor, among other things. I suspect the Supreme Court precedent has already been established for the fed gov't to immediately begin to meddle were such a law passed. Pandora's Box would be opened. We would eventually end up with the national right to concealed carry a single bullet, .22lr, 1.5in barrel length firearm in all states. Yay. :~ Frankly, it longer matters what the "plain English" of the Constitution states, the Marshall Court and the "common good" precedent has already superseded , no usurped, that language. Please don't let your short sighted desire to get cwp reciprocity cloud the bigger picture. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[hermannr]

Dont fool yourselves. The Interstate Commerce Clause would surely be invoked, were national concealed carry reciprocity passed, to govern, read control, magazine size, caliber and bore length, etc. Sure the states define their own driver's licensure reqs but the feds establish national highway speed limits, trucking load capacities, number of trailers per tractor, among other things. I suspect the Supreme Court precedent has already been established for the fed gov't to immediately begin to meddle were such a law passed. Pandora's Box would be opened. We would eventually end up with the national right to concealed carry a single bullet, .22lr, 1.5in barrel length firearm in all states. Yay. :~ Frankly, it longer matters what the "plain English" of the Constitution states, the Marshall Court and the "common good" precedent has already superseded , no usurped, that language. Please don't let your short sighted desire to get cwp reciprocity cloud the bigger picture. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2

A national reciprocity law would not be based on the commerce clause, but Article IV section I. Jimmy Carter the national speed limit...did not stick...there is no national speed limit anymore. Don't think so. Go drive I10 down in TX...Speed limit is 85.

The commercial drivers license idea is based on a Federal Law, but is still state controlled. The Feds put up a "minimum standard" so you would not have too get different licenses in different states,

 

[hermannr]

I think we all hope you are correct in your analysis. We all thought the Supreme Court was going to defend us on Obamacare before Roberts sold out to the other side. I don't see with the make-up of this Court we could ever manage better then a 5-4 decision and right now that could be either way.

Why do you see this so differently. Just being a positive thinker or....?

Actually, there are several reasons. The first is: the Supreme Court tends to get a bit upset when LOWER courts do not listen to them. I feel that a ruling in Kachalski will be a very loud and clear message to the lower courts as to what the supremes meant in Heller.

The second reason is Kagan. When she was being questioned prior to her confirmation she was asked if she had ever held or shot any firearm. She answered "No, but if I am confirmed I intend to."

Well, she was confirmed, and did go shooting skeet with Scalia, and then she went Elk hunting in Montana with Scalia, and then more shooting with Scalia. I am praying we have a convert to the 2A. One thing I will say about Kagan, she is a bit more open minded when it comes to firearms then the other "ladies from NYC".

The wild card is Kennedy, but I think he will stay with Scalia.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted.

I expect that any national reciprocity will result in all states only recognizing permits from residents of the state that issued the permit. There would be no need for any non-resident permits. That would stop a serious revenue stream for states like FL and UT, but whatever your state required for you to be licensed in your state, would be good everywhere in the US, would not matter is you came from PA or WA (very easy to obtain a CPL) or NJ, NY, MD, very difficult because of discretionary issue, or NM and TX (very expensive because of the training requirements)

The states that would soil their pantyhose with this would be places like CA, CT, DC, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and maybe IL. Well see about IL if/when they finally get a CC law on the books (Court ordered, the state of IL has about 3 more months to get it's act together before they become another VT by court order (no license needed, no restrictions). They were given 6 months by the 7th US Court of appeals to enact a law before their present no carry law is no longer a valid law).

But I'm sure the argument from Schumer and others like him will be that we must have a national standard for CHL issuance. I don't know how far they will get with that, but I've seen similarly questionable legislation pass unchallenged.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

9 again to rule/judge over 300+ million. Yep, I am sure that's what the founding fathers intended for this country. To go from 1 king to 9.

That the Supreme Court of the US should be the final word on the interpretation of laws is exactly what the founders intended. That they should create law is not. Overall, with a few glaring exceptions written by justices like Ginsberg, the court has done its job pretty well.

 

[Father of four]

If and when they feel like it.....Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to Strict New York Gun Law | TheBlaze.com

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults."

 

[Father of four]

Overall, with a few glaring exceptions written by justices like Ginsberg, the court has done its job pretty well.

That is your opinion. I disagree.

 

[rocky3]

That's like saying I'd let someone cut off my left foot if they gave me a new boot for my right foot.

Just because they (the .gov) are offering something good doesn't mean the whole bill is good. It's how they sucker us in to their compromises.... Sure, we'll give up something (temporarily), get what we want then snatch the other thing away.

I've seen the .gov do this kind of thing too many times to believe it. (The Black Hills belonged to the Souix "as long as the sun shall shine"...or until white man finds gold) (Retire from the military and you'll get free medical care for you and your family for life)...I could go on and on, but what it boils down to is this, what the .gov "gives" the .gov can take away.

Yup, so very true, unless you are a wall streeter or big bank.

 

[Father of four]

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 unless the Supreme Court judges otherwise.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

That is your opinion. I disagree.

I spent a couple years in law school reading USSC decisions about 6 hours a day. Overall they have done a pretty good job over the years.

As for accepting cases for review, if they feel that there was no error in the lower court, or that there is no constitutional issue involved they refuse the case so as not to waste everyone's time. They may not agree with the lower court decision on other grounds, but if there was no violation of the constitution, and no legal error in the lower court there's nothing they CAN do.

 

[Rotty]

My opinion, we are going to see a new level of discrimination. Matter of fact we are already seeing it. If you are pro 2A you are "One of those people". If you are Anti 2A then you fit into the "Norm" that they are trying to create.

If Reciprocity gets approved I believe the states like NY, CA, CO that have strong gun laws will be where we will see the discrimination in first.

Just my two bits.

 

[Father of four]

I spent a couple years in law school reading USSC decisions about 6 hours a day. Overall they have done a pretty good job over the years.

As for accepting cases for review, if they feel that there was no error in the lower court, or that there is no constitutional issue involved they refuse the case so as not to waste everyone's time. They may not agree with the lower court decision on other grounds, but if there was no violation of the constitution, and no legal error in the lower court there's nothing they CAN do.

If the majority of The People do not agree that Obamacare for instance is constitutional but the supremes say it is then you are alright with it? I think The People should have the last say not the 9...often 5 out of 9 judges.

 

[hermannr]

If and when they feel like it.....Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to Strict New York Gun Law | TheBlaze.com

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults."

Well, next is Woollard, and maybe Madigan will appeal on the Moore ruling. There are people (lawyers) over on thefiringline that think they are "cleaner" than Kachalski. I'm still disappointed.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

If the majority of The People do not agree that Obamacare for instance is constitutional but the supremes say it is then you are alright with it? I think The People should have the last say not the 9...often 5 out of 9 judges.

They (the people) do have the final say about things like this. It's called the vote. The fact that very few people take it seriously is the problem. If we (the PEOPLE) don't like the government we have, we (the PEOPLE) can fix it....every two years we can change the entire House if we want. We can force them (the Congress crittersa) to amend the Constitution, if we work at it. But, bread and circuses keep the people fat and happy....

 

[Father of four]

What about the Supreme Court Judges. We cant vote them out, but they (5 out of 9 sometimes) gets to tell us what they think is right and wrong and then we must do it.