search
top

National Concealed Carry Back in House

Introduced by Republican Cliff Stearns and Democrat, Heath Schuler. I’ll be curious to see text. I’m opposed to using the commerce power to accomplish this, but am very open to using Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment. Due to existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress’ power to do this is somewhat questionable, but I’d prefer Congress interpret its powers under the 14th Amendment broadly, and let the courts be the ones to rebuke them. Many federal judges and Supreme Court justices might be reluctant to second guess the elected branches of government on this matter, especially if the bill passes with bipartisan majorities.

18 Responses to “National Concealed Carry Back in House”

  1. Patrick says:

    Only Guns and Money has updated with bill text in the original link.

  2. Carl from Chicago says:

    14A and SCOTUS precedent is precisely the authorization noted. Look under Section 2 Findings.

  3. Matthew Carberry says:

    Alaskans (and now Arizonans) are okay since they have a permit option but this doesn’t address Vermont.

    It requires ID AND a permit.

    Could Vermont, under their Constitution and precedent, create a voluntary permit simply to provide its citizens with reciprocity opportunities outside the state?

    Would they need an amendment?

    Could an equal protection case be made that Vermont’s DL should be sufficient if a permit cannot be created by the state?

  4. Wes says:

    My questions are along the same lines. I don’t want a national carry law messing with states that don’t require permits and fees to exercise a basic right. My state has no gun registration, no permits, etc, (and thus no extra fees), and I’d like to keep it that way.

  5. Matthew Carberry says:

    Wes,

    Nothing in the text of the bill forces states to change their own process for their own citizens in their own state. It’s just that the wording leaves VT out in the cold.

    I wonder about NYC, since doesn’t even an unrestricted NYS permit not work the same in the City?

  6. David says:

    Do you all really think we have a president who will sign this bill should it make it out of committee without a load of non related amendments, and then make it though both the house and senate?

    I don’t think we’ll be seeing this any time soon.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Obama will veto, I think, but I don’t see any reason not to put it on his desk and make him do it.

  8. Carl from Chicago says:

    Wes Said, February 22nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
    My questions are along the same lines. I don’t want a national carry law messing with states that don’t require permits and fees to exercise a basic right. My state has no gun registration, no permits, etc, (and thus no extra fees), and I’d like to keep it that way.

    This bill as written would have zero effect on constitutional carry states. Zero.

  9. Carl from Chicago says:

    David Said, February 22nd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
    Do you all really think we have a president who will sign this bill should it make it out of committee without a load of non related amendments, and then make it though both the house and senate?

    I don’t think we’ll be seeing this any time soon.

    Did you think we had a president who would sign a bill to repeal federal prohibitions on carry in National Parks?

    What I am getting at is that this reciprocity will almost certainly be offered as an amendment to a different, “must pass” bill.

    And I think passage in that form is very likely.

  10. Patrick says:

    The bill is officially filed with it’s constitutional authority falling under the Commerce Clause, not the 14th. I looked it up in the federal register. It’s the smart choice.

    The bill will merge with the Thune Amendment and according to the person I talked to in the Rep’s office, it will then be attached as an amendment to something “must sign”. I think we can all agree that the president would not sign this in stand-alone form.

    I think (my thoughts, not from any official source) that this is best placed on the upcoming debt limit bill. It will be less contentious than the budget bill and more likely to pass. The budget bill has a good chance of being vetoed for completely different reasons. But not the debt ceiling bill. No way.

    Also, this text creates an odd circumstance where the residents of may-issue state (who are denied a permit from their own state) could use a Florida permit to carry in 46 other states, but not in their own. Even more interesting, a Chicago resident could get a permit and carry in Los Angeles, but not at home.

    This ratchets up pressure nationwide on recalcitrant states. Also note that WI and IL stand decent chance of issuing permits this year. That’s a perfect 50 states.

    Ironically, I would not be able to carry in my home state of Maryland, but I could carry in Chicago. Love it.

  11. Matthew Carberry says:

    Since the out-of-stater gets the “best” unrestricted permit terms compared to a resident I wonder which way restricted permit states would tilt, eliminate restrictions for their own citizens or eliminate the less restrictive options?

  12. Wes says:

    “Also note that WI and IL stand decent chance of issuing permits this year. ”

    Heh, I hope not. WI already has no-permit open carry. All it would need for no-permit concealed carry is to change a couple sentences in the law. :)

  13. Stew says:

    This is only good. I wonder what sort of poison pills the anti-freedom crowd will add.

  14. FatWhiteMan says:

    Since this isn’t establishing a National CCW but is merely forcing reciprocity, how would this be different than requiring all states to recognize each others’ drivers licenses, marriages, etc? I’m not sure I see any Constitutional problem with it.

  15. Ian Argent says:

    Bah – wouldn’t help me all that much, though I suppose there’s good reason for that.

  16. GeekWithA.45, USA says:

    I don’t think appeal to either commerce or 14th is needed. Article IV, sections 1 & 2 ought to suffice, iirc, that’s how driver’s licenses work across state lines:

    Article 4.

    Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
    and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
    Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
    proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section 2
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
    of Citizens in the several States.

  17. Sebastian says:

    FFAC has never been understood to apply to licensing, as far as I can recall.

  18. Ian Argent says:

    Congress could use Art 4 Sec 1 as the justification to make a General Law prescribing the manner by which FFAC is now understood to apply to permits was what I thought @GeekWithA.45 was going for.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » National Concealed Carry - [...] A bill in the house. [...]
top