I’m not of the opinion that National Concealed Carry is constitutional under the guise of the commerce clause (possibly something could be done under the 14th Amendment), but I have to agree with Joe’s reasoning:
Although IÂ agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”
I’ve heard others express similar sentiment.Â I also consider that if such language would kill the hate crime bill, it might be worth a try.Â Once the government starts creating hate crimes, they aren’t too far away from creating thought crimes.Â In fact, hate crimes are thought crimes, so strike that.
10 thoughts on “On National Concealed Carry”
Your thoughts on the full faith and credit clause?
FFC doesn’t generally apply to things like licensing. Driver’s licenses are recognized through compacts between the states. It’s never been held that it even has to apply to things like marriages.
I realize the point about driver’s licenses and the FFC … but there are those who say that there is no reason it couldn’t be used to force acceptance of other state’s CCW licenses, as it could have been used to force the acceptance of driver’s licenses.
Not a lawyer personally …
In a similar vein, if the SCOTUS grants cert to the Chicago gun case, that puts Chicago in the uncomfortable position of having to defend Federalism (even though it doesn’t really apply here), and the Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank decisions. This should be fun.
My concern about any National Concealed Carry is that it opens the door to federally mandated requirements for states to issue concealed carry permits. States that have onerous requirements for people to get a permit (say, California) will whine loudly about having to allow “unqualified” people from states with minimal requirements (say, Alaska) to carry concealed, and demand that Congress set a national standard.
Once there’s a national standard, the feds have a path to making it difficult or impossible to get a permit.
Agree with Jake.
Look, long term, the only way liberty’s going to be preserved is to somehow get the feds out of the business of passing “police power” laws like this — good or bad.
It’s 2009. Your working assumption should be that EVERY new expansion of federal authority, even for seemingly good causes like this, will eventually be used and abused against us. And “eventually” won’t take long. Cf. DHS and all the “national security” / surveillance B.S. under Bush II.
But it does apply to judicial acts. One should recruit a Georgia CCW permit holder to be the named plaintiff. In GA probate courts issue CCW permits.
Interesting point, Paratrooper. In Virginia, CHP’s are issued by the Circuit Courts. I wonder how that would hold up in an actual challenge.
I agree it’s a bit of an overreach under the commerce clause to require all states, or at least all states that allow concealed carry under certain circumstances, to recognize each other’s permits (I also don’t think it matters a whit whether the permit was issued by the State Police, a court, etc., but that’s another discussion). How about this, instead. A national law requiring all states to recognize out of state permits issued under criteria at least as stringent as Utah’s while traveling on business? Then let envy politics (think Uncle’s “like you and me only better”) take care of the rest.
Comments are closed.