National Concealed Carry Reciprocity vs 10th amendment/state’s rights issues

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by DKW, Nov 17, 2016.

  1. DKW

    DKW Active Member

    433
    45
    28
    Just curious as to what everyone’s opinion on this is? I hear a lot of talk about this now that Trump is president-elect. I am personally on the 10th amendment/state’s right side of this issue.

    I hear everybody compare this to driver’s licenses reciprocity however I believe this is a flawed argument because as far as I can tell there is no national law/US code to dictate driver’s license reciprocity. There is only the “Driver’s License Compact†between the states (no federal involvement at all) in which all states have signed up to.

    If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
     
  2. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    The 2nd amendment is a right. Quite frankly, I think a law declaring national constitutional carry would be redundant to the 2nd amendment itself but apparently is needed to reinforce it, and would not be trampling states rights at all. States have no right to limit our federally granted constitutional rights.
     

  3. Alabama Jones

    Alabama Jones Señor Member

    1,449
    34
    48
    I'm with mrhutch, except that our Constitutional
    rights are God given, not federally granted.
     
  4. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    You are correct, I should have said "federally secured/protected", not granted
     
  5. GlockGary

    GlockGary Glock Block Supporter

    2,573
    37
    48
    :ditto:

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
     
  6. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    71
    48
    I always kind of thought the 14th provided the Federal govt with the authority to intervene in state govts that "abridge" our rights.

    Please note "privilege" used here is not some arbitrary thing subject to whim. A privilege was something you were due by virtue of being a citizen.
     
  7. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63
    Amen brother!
     
  8. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,959
    42
    48
    I figure there are a few options:
    Federal mandate (likely Congressional)
    SCOTUS ruling under full faith and credit
    SCOTUS ruling under 2A
    The states eventually get around to it on their own
    1-2 remaining states eventually cave to economic and political pressure

    I figure Federal mandate results in a discriminatory "race to the bottom" in order to keep "those people" from "carrying here" amongst certain states.
    Heck, I even figure a SCOTUS ruling results in a smaller version of that.

    I think the best thing individual states can do to move it along (if we stick with licensing) is to move to recognize-any stances. Second to that would be non-resident issuance but that's just more hurdles.

    I think lots of mountains have to move to get 50-state unlicensed carry...
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    States are infringing on a federal constitutional right.

    It is a DUTY of the federal government, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, to interfere with state violations of fundamental federal rights. The 14th Amendment even empowers Congress to pass laws to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment. See Section 5.

    Congress would not be "giving" anything by doing so, but would be stopping states from infringing on the exercise of a constitutional right.

    There is no "Tenth Amendment/ States Right Issue" involved with violating my constitutional rights. The Tenth Amendment and the meaningless slogan "State's Rights" do not permit states to violate my constitutional rights. That is an asinine argument.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Exactly my position (well, other than the word "granted," LOL!)
    It does, Rugerer.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Which is what is being discussed here. A law that prevents states from infringing upon my constitutional right to bear arms - for example, when I am visiting New Jersey.

    Now keep in mind that Congress has tried to do this in the past. It was weak, and it was under the Commerce Clause (I think) rather than the 14th Amendment, but the Firearm Owners Protection Act, passed in 1986 (along with the poison pill amendment to ban machine guns that the NRA ok'd) did offer some protections while passing through states hostile to the right to keep and bear arms.

    0% chance - this is not what full faith and credit is about.
    0% chance. The opportunity has presented itself several times. They have rejected appeals from state laws with discretionary issue, meaning essentially no right to bear arms outside the home.

    Yeah, any day now . . .
    1-2???

    Congress has floated bills for this for the last several years. They have certain minimum protections as to locations for carry and such.

    Sure, but some states just are not going to let Georgians carry. Look how difficult it was in SC, and that is a relatively friendly state compared to, say, New Jersey.

    LOL! Understatement. Let's try getting these big government Republicans in Georgia just to let us have unlicensed carry for openly carried pistols first . . . then we can focus on the next step. They won't even take the baby step.
     
  12. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment originally stopped the federal government from making any law that outlawed any arms at all from any citizen, and then with the 14th Amendment, I believe that the 2nd Amendment was nationalized therefore if you take the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment together that means that we should be able to carry any arm anywhere that we want anywhere in this country.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  13. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    This is what I come to you with a plain reading, and doing a lot of background research on the Constitution as it stands right now and the Bill of Rights.
     
  14. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Completely asinine. :exactly:

    Prior to the 14A, it was up to each State individually to comply with the ratified implied incorporation. After the 14th, each State now gets the help of the Federal gov't in doing so through direct, explicit incorporation.

    One might as well say the 10A allows the Georgia State Patrol to take up residence in your home despite the 3A.

    :roll:
     
  15. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Yes that AND more. If they wanted to restrict it to merely the Federal gov't then it would have been worded more like the 1A. Prior to the 14A, each individual State was still free to establish State religions within their own borders, for example. After the 14A, not so much.

    But the 2A was not worded that way. Instead it is a blanket declaration without qualification (not scoped to a particular gov't). It is as much a restriction on the Federal gov't as it is a declaration of minimum State membership requirements. That's what is meant by implicit incorporation.

    "...this we do and so we join, and so must you do to join too..."

    These are the precepts to which you, a candidate State, must bind yourself for membership. "Here's da' rulez, ya' in?"
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Actually, Baltimore v. Maryland (1833), the US Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights was a restriction on the federal government alone. Nevertheless, if you look at Nunn v. State a decade later, the Georgia Supreme Court holds that the Second Amendment binds the state as well as the federal government, so . . .
     
  17. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63
    At least one Court got it right.
     
  18. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,268
    527
    113
    Actually if the court had dug a little deeper into what had to be done to become a state it would have come to the proper conclusion.

    One of the conditions that MUST be met is to adopt the US Constitution as their own. Not the exact wording but I didn't want to look it up.
     
  19. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,543
    687
    113
    I don't want to see the feds issuing carry permits, but the feds can mandate reciprocity for short-term visitors to another state. Not just passing through, but doing any kind of interstate travel or commerce. Personal, family vacation, or business travel.

    If somebody is going to stay in a state long-term, then the feds can insist that this state offer that person a resident's carry permit, even if that person is only a part-time resident (e.g. a "snowbird" that spends November to March in Florida, the rest of the year in NY, NJ, MA...)

    The Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment (and 14th Amd, applied to the States per McDonald), justify federal action that limits State authority here, as to interstate travelers and visitors to a state.

    The 2A itself also demands that every state let residents or long-term visitors either get a permit, under reasonable conditions (not unduly burdensome) or just carry without one (say, openly).
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I do not think any of the proposals or bills floated or introduced so far include the federal government issuing anything. Each of them has focused on preventing states from making it illegal for visitors to carry.