Well said, Blues, and goes to the very heart of my question, earlier. Thanks.Originally Posted by BluesStringer
Senator
Well said, Blues, and goes to the very heart of my question, earlier. Thanks.
Esquire
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...075071&EXT=pdf
Clayton E. Cramer's opinion,
Abstract: Congress is considering passage of national concealed carry legislation requiring all states to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued by any state, rather like the way that every state recognizes driver’s licenses issued by another state. Are there any constitutional problems with such legislation? What practical problems might result? This paper seeks to answer those questions.
I. Background
Every state except Vermont now issues concealed weapon licenses.2 (Vermont has never required licenses.) In most of the U.S., those licenses are “shall-issue”; the statute provides a list of disqualifiers (e.g., felony conviction, involuntary mental hospitalization, domestic violence misdemeanor conviction) but otherwise creates a presumption in favor of the applicant. By contrast, several states remain “may-issue”; discretion is left to the issuing authority as to whether an applicant has an adequate reason for such a license.3 Bribery and political influence are significant issues in who has an adequate reason in many of these states.4 Unsurprisingly “may-
_____________________________
1 Adjunct History Faculty, College of Western Idaho. Mr. Cramer is the author of CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC: DUELING, SOUTHERN VIOLENCE, AND MORAL REFORM (1999) (cited by Justice Breyer in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3132 (2010) (Breyer, J., dissenting)), and ARMED AMERICA: THE REMARKABLE STORY OF HOW AND WHY GUNS BECAME AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE (2006), and co-author of, among other articles, Clayton E. Cramer & Joseph Edward Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?, 6 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 511 (200(cited by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 588 (200
2 Caitlyn G. McEvoy, The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law, 101 ILLINOIS BAR JOURNAL 12, 620. (“On July 9, 2013, after much litigation and political wrangling, Illinois became the last state in the country to allow carrying firearms in public.”)
3 Clayton E. Cramer and David P. Kopel, “`Shall Issue': The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws,” 62:3 TENNESSEE LAW 679-757 provides an overview of the history of such laws, and the effects on murder rates as of 1994. Since then, most U.S. states have switched to “shall-issue” laws.
4 Victoria Bekeimpis and Stephen Rex Brown, Brooklyn businessman pleads guilty to bribing NYPD cops for gun permits, New York Daily News, Nov. 10, 2016. (“I had a good and friendly relationship with New York City police officers. During these years, I gave police officers in the Licensing Division things of value, including money, knowing
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 2
issue” states usually do not honor licenses issued by other states. National Concealed Carry
Reciprocity is an attempt to get every state to recognize every other state’s concealed weapon
licenses, much like automobile driver’s licenses, which allow you to drive a car in every state,
once you are licensed in one.
In the last few years, a number of states have repealed their laws requiring a license to carry
concealed; it appears that persons charged with unlicensed concealed carry are usually prohibited
from firearms possession, so the addition of an unlicensed carry violation is irrelevant.
For Wyoming and Idaho, only residents of the state are exempt from the license requirement; nonresidents
must still have a concealed carry license from their home state.5 All of these states continue to issue concealed carry licenses to residents for travel to states that recognize out of state licenses.6
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________
that by giving them those things, the officers would do me favors, including expediting gun license applications.”);
Gene Maddaus, Sheriff Lee Baca and the Gun-Gift Connection, L.A. WEEKLY, Feb. 14, 2013. (“In L.A.
County, records show, most of the permits go to judges and reserve deputies. But there is another group that seems to
have better luck than most in obtaining permits: friends of Lee Baca. Those who've given the sheriff gifts or donated
to his campaign are disproportionately represented on the roster of permit holders.”); Sheriff begins taking away
concealed weapons permits, ORANGE COUNTY (CAL.) REGISTER, Aug. 21, 2013, (“Records reviewed by the Orange
County Register show that concealed weapon permits soared under [former Sheriff] Carona, from 38 in 1998 to 468
the next year. By 2006, it was up to 1,400, a four-fold increase. When Carona took over in 1998, Orange County
ranked 34th in terms of the numbers of permits granted. By 2006, Orange County was ranked number nine. However,
the Register also found numerous instances where campaign donors received the permits. A Register analysis of
Carona campaign contributions from 1996 to the end of 2001 shows that at least 95 contributors - who gave at least
$68,000 - got licenses. Indeed, the federal indictment against Carona details one specific instance where a wealthy
contributor was granted a license under questionable circumstances.”); Gillian Flaccus, America's sheriff' faces Calif.
corruption trial, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, Oct. 28, 2008. (“In court papers, the government accuses the squarejawed,
three-term sheriff and his friends of accepting nearly $700,000 in cash, gifts, kickbacks and questionable loans
in exchange for political favors beginning in 1998. Prosecutors say many of those bribes came from Don Haidl, a
wealthy businessman. In exchange, authorities say, Carona made Haidl an assistant sheriff and put him in charge of
a new reserve deputy program that allowed him to hand out badges and concealed weapons permits in a pay-to-play
scheme.”)
5 Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, Concealed Firearm Permits, http://wyomingdci.wyo.gov/dci-criminaljustice-
information-systems-section/concealed-firearms-permits, last accessed December 23, 2016. (“A change to the
Wyoming Concealed Firearm Permit State Statute in 2011 removed the requirement for Wyoming residents that
wanted to carry a concealed firearm in our state from having a valid permit in order to carry a concealed firearm.”);
Idaho Code § 18-3302(3)(f) (2016).
6 John Sowell, With permitless carry, Idahoans still seek out training, permits for concealed guns, IDAHO STATESMAN,
DEC. 18, 2016; State of Alaska Department of Public Safety, Alaska Concealed Handgun,
http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/perm...dhandguns.aspx, last accessed December 23, 2016.
(“Alaska's laws do not prohibit anyone 21 or older who may legally possess a firearm from carrying it concealed. A
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 3
Many states recognize licenses issued by all other states;7 a number recognize licenses on a
reciprocal basis, requiring both recognition of their licenses quid pro quo, and similar standards of
issuance.8
II. Does Congress Have Authority to Impose a National Standard in This Area?
At first glance, the idea of the national government directing states to recognize concealed
carry licenses issued by other states seems like a disturbing interference in the federal system,
where Congress’ powers are limited to the relatively narrow list contained in Art. I, § 8. Some
would say that horse left the barn a very long time ago, but even reading the existing case law very
narrowly, Congressional authority seems sufficient on several grounds.
__________________________________________________ _____________
special permit is not required.”); Maine State Police, Concealed Handgun Permits,
http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/license...s_permits.html, last accessed December 23, 2016. (“Effective
October 15, 2015, Public Law 2015, Chapter 327 (LD 652), “An Act To Authorize the Carrying of Concealed
Handguns without a Permit,” allows a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm to carry a
concealed handgun in the State of Maine without a permit.”); Tim O’Neil, New Missouri gun law changes the rules,
but some restrictions remain, ST. LOUIS (MO.) POST-DISPATCH, Sept. 16, 2016 (“The marquee section generally allows
gun owners to pack them concealed without the need of passing the special training and paying permit fees the state
has required since 2004. The issue has divided Missouri politics, largely along urban-rural lines, much longer than
that.”); Alia Beard Rau, Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit, ARIZONA REPUBLIC, Apr. 16, 2010.
(“Starting later this summer, U.S. citizens 21 and older can begin carrying a concealed firearm without a permit in
Arizona.”).
7 Example: Ohio HB 234, § 109.69 (B)(3) (“If, on or after the effective date of this amendment, a person who is not a
resident of this state has a valid concealed handgun license that was issued by another license-issuing state, regardless
of whether the other license-issuing state has entered into a reciprocity agreement with the attorney general under
division (A)(1) of this section, and the person is temporarily in this state, during the time that the person is temporarily
in this state the license issued by the other license-issuing state shall be recognized in this state, shall be accepted and
valid in this state, and grants the person the same right to carry a concealed handgun in this state as a person who was
issued a concealed handgun license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.”)
8 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(k), (“The Attorney General shall have the power and duty to enter into reciprocity agreements
with other states providing for the mutual recognition of a license to carry a firearm issued by the Commonwealth and
a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by the other state. To carry out this duty, the Attorney General is authorized
to negotiate reciprocity agreements and grant recognition of a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by another
state.”)
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 4
A. Enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Since McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process clause extends the Second Amendment to the states.9 Amendment 14,
§ 5, authorizes Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”10
The Court has at times shown a preference for use of the interstate commerce clause in conjunction
with section 1 with an “obscuring neglect of Section 5’s meaning and role in providing for
equality.”11 This is no surprise; U.S. v. Stanley (1883), one of the Civil Rights Cases, limited
Congressional authority under section 5 to “prohibited State laws and State acts” and overturned
such provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that applied to private party discrimination.12 Laws
prohibiting concealed carrying of firearms certainly violate the Second Amendment as applied by
McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Such laws are certainly “prohibited State laws and State acts,” and
thus the existing precedents limiting section 5 enforcement do not apply to a statute protecting
concealed carry of arms.
B. Enforcement of the Privileges or Immunities Clause
While the McDonald majority opinion refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the
“privileges or immunities” clause of section 1,13 incorporation through “privileges or immunities”
is a perfectly plausible historical argument, advanced in Justice Thomas’ partially concurring,
partially dissenting opinion in McDonald. Thomas called the Due Process Clause theory a
__________________________________________________ _____________
9 McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010)(“We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”)
10 U.S. Const., Amendment 14, § 5.
11 Sora Han, Equal Protection’s Dead End, or the Slave’s Undying Claim, CONTROVERSIES IN EQUAL PROTECTION
CASES IN AMERICA: RACE, GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION 55 (2015).
12 U.S. v. Stanley, 109 US 3, 11 (1883)(Limiting section 5 enforcement power to Amendment 14, section 1: “It is
State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter
of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action
of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in
life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”)
13 McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3030, 3031 (2010).
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 5
“fiction.”14 It is apparent that the sheer volume of precedents built up on this “fictional” use of the
Due Process Clause (which protects “any person”), if replaced by the historically more correct
privileges or immunities clause (which protects the narrower “citizens of the United States"),
would undermine so much of current precedent as to create a nearly unlimited stream of challenges
to existing laws, decisions, and convictions, many stretching back decades. While good for
lawyers, it would create severe instability and congestion for the American legal system, which
may be why the McDonald decision refused to adopt privileges or immunities.
Nonetheless, Congress is free to take a side in this debate, agreeing with historians who have
studied the history of the privileges or immunities clause, and found that the 14th Amendment’s
principal author, John T. Bingham, believed that “the Bill of Rights represented privileges and
immunities that belonged to all US citizens and that should be guarded against abridgement by
both federal and state authorities.”15 Congress might and perhaps should argue that national
concealed carry legislation is based on both the Due Process and the Privileges or Immunity
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Right to Travel
The Court has repeatedly recognized a right to travel starting with the Passenger Cases (1849).
But this is not simply a right to travel from state to state, but to enjoy the benefits of living in the
state of one’s choosing. In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Court overruled a Connecticut statute
__________________________________________________ _____________________
14 Id., at 3062 (2010)(“Using the latter approach, the Court has determined that the Due Process Clause applies rights
against the States that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all, even without seriously arguing that the Clause was
originally understood to protect such rights…. All of this is a legal fiction. The notion that a constitutional provision
that guarantees only "process" before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of
those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. Moreover, this fiction is a particularly dangerous
one. The one theme that links the Court's substantive due process precedents together is their lack of a guiding principle
to distinguish "fundamental" rights that warrant protection from nonfundamental rights that do not.”)
15 Kurt T. Lash, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP 82 (2014).
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 6
that required one year of residence to collect welfare, and similar statutes in other states16 because
these residency requirements impaired freedom to travel from state to state and enjoy equal
benefits with existing residents.17
Because many states will only issue concealed carry licenses to residents, with no provision
for recognizing licenses issued by other states, a person moving from one state to another is
prohibited from concealed carry in her new state of residence (and often prohibited from open
carry1
licensing process is required. While not a specified time interval as with Connecticut’s one year
waiting period, this is clearly a limitation on a new resident’s Second Amendment rights, even if
they manage to acquire a concealed carry license in a “may-issue” state. This is clearly a limitation
on the right to move from state to state. Unlike collecting welfare, which is not a fundamental
right (and was only protected in Shapiro because this was an equal protection violation),
prohibiting enjoyment of Second Amendment rights does violate a fundamental right.
D. Interstate Commerce Regulation
The Court has long recognized that interstate commerce is within the regulatory authority of
Congress including pre-emption of state laws. The Court in Boynton v. Virginia (1960) overturned
a Virginia trespassing conviction for a black interstate bus passenger who insisted on service in
the white section of a bus terminal restaurant,19 because the Interstate Commerce Act prohibited
discrimination by interstate carriers.20 While the Interstate Commerce Act only prohibited
___________________________________________
16 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618, 642 (1969).
17 Id., at 631, 632 (“Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the
classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible.”).
18 Cal. Penal Code § 26350(a) (2014).
19 Boynton v. Virginia, 364 US 454, 455, 456 (1960).
20 Id., at 458.
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 7
discrimination by a private entity, the actual action overturned was a criminal conviction under
state law.
The Court has applied this not only to overruling state actions, but limiting the freedom of
private businesses if their actions interfered with interstate commerce. In Heart of Atlanta, Inc. v.
U.S. (1964), the Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination by
a hotel whose business was largely interstate commerce.21
The justification for this statute was, “The Senate Commerce Committee made it quite clear
that the fundamental object of Title II was to vindicate “the deprivation of personal dignity that
surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.”22 Without deprecating the
insult to the personal dignity that such racial discrimination caused, it should be apparent that the
right to personal self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is at least as important; victims
of murder, rape, and robbery experience even more severe insults to personal dignity than separate
accommodations. Even the denial of the right to effective self-defense with its implication that
one is trusted by most states with being responsible enough to carry a gun, but not by some states,
can certainly be regarded as an insult to personal dignity. While Heart of Atlanta might well be a
sufficient precedent for Congressional action to prohibit private discrimination against concealed
carry of arms, the bulk of the problem that national concealed carry reciprocity seeks to correct are
state and local laws.
__________________________________________________ _________________
21 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S., 379 US 241, 243 (1964)(“Appellant solicits patronage from outside the State
of Georgia through various national advertising media, including magazines of national circulation; it maintains over
50 billboards and highway signs within the State, soliciting patronage for the motel; it accepts convention trade from
outside Georgia and approximately 75% of its registered guests are from out of State.”)
22 Id., at 250.
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 8
In either situation, state action or private discrimination, it is apparent that the minority of states
that either generally do not issue concealed weapon licenses or refuse to recognize licenses issued
by their sister states, discourage travel from other states or through their states.
Other federal statutes also regulate or pre-empt firearms possession within the states under
interstate commerce authority. The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 contains a “safe
transit” provision which allows persons not otherwise prohibited from firearms possession by
federal law to transport unloaded firearms across states where possession is otherwise prohibited
by state law.23 As an example, the author recently traveled from Connecticut (for which he has a
concealed weapon license) to New Hampshire, which recognizes his Idaho concealed weapon
license.24 While crossing Massachusetts, which makes unlicensed possession of an unloaded
firearm a felony,25 the author kept his handgun unloaded and locked in his trunk to conform to the
“safe transit” provision until crossing into New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state.
While there has been considerable case law associated with the “safe transit” provision, there
seems to be none challenging this federal pre-emption of state laws. Some of these decisions
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
3 18 USC § 926A (1986) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State
or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting,
shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where
he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such
firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being
transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting
vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the
firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.”)
24 New Hampshire Department of Public Safety, Pistol and Revolver Licensing,
https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...ing/plupr.html, last accessed December 25, 2016.
25 Mass. G.L. ch. 140 § 129C (“No person, other than a licensed dealer or one who has been issued a license to carry
a pistol or revolver or an exempt person as hereinafter described, shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, shotgun or
ammunition unless he has been issued a firearm identification card by the licensing authority pursuant to the provisions
of section one hundred and twenty-nine B.”); punishment specified at ch. 269 § 10(h)(1) (“Whoever owns, possesses
or transfers a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition without complying with the provisions of section 129C of chapter
140 shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not
more than $500. Whoever commits a second or subsequent violation of this paragraph shall be punished by
imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. Any
officer authorized to make arrests may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to
believe has violated this paragraph.”)
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 9
involved “drug trafficking”26 while others involve otherwise innocent violations of state laws
caused by delayed airline flights or transit to airports through restrictive states.27 As one of the
decisions observes, quoting the district court decision, police officers attempting to determine
applicability of the “safe transit” clause are in a difficult situation:
Multiply the fluidity of that scenario by 50 jurisdictions (putting aside issues that might arise as
a result of international travel with interim domestic stopovers), and nearly a billion passengers
moving through U.S. airports per year, and it becomes apparent that providing a damage remedy
under § 1983 for a failure to adequately apply § 926A would be unworkable.28
The Tarraco decision also points to one other weakness of the “safe transit” provision:
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress
to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on
the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and
the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.29
This alone argues for a clearer federal law concerning “safe transit,” which national concealed
carry reciprocity would largely correct; persons with state licenses would immunize themselves
against such charges, reducing congestion of the state courts, and reducing federal court congestion
from sec. 1983 suits filed against state officers and agencies.
Another statute relevant to Congress’ authority to regulate firearms possession through the
interstate commerce clause is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which criminalized
“possess[ing] a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is
a school zone.”30 In the Lopez decision, the 5th Circuit cited U.S. v. Bass (1971) which held that
Congressional authority to criminalize gun possession (in Bass’ case by convicted felons) was
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________
26 Muscarello v. U.S., 524 US 125, 126,134 (199
provision criminalizing use of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime).
27 Revell v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 598 F. 3d 128, 130 (3rd Cir., 2010). Revell was a 42 USC 1983
suits against the arresting police officers for violation of the gun owners’ civil rights, which greatly lengthened and
complicated these decisions.
27 Torraco v. Port Authority of NY and NJ, 615 F. 3d 129, 138 (2nd Cir. 2010).
28Id.
29 18 USC § 927 (1986).
30 U.S. v. Lopez, 2 F. 3d 1342, 1345, 1346 (5th Cir. 1993).
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 104
limited “without a commerce nexus…, it would intrude upon an area of traditional state authority
and would push Congress' commerce power to its limit, if not beyond.”31 That Congress made no
attempt to tie the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to interstate commerce appears to have
sealed its fate.32 Lopez also quoted Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to emphasize that local noncommercial
activity was within Congress’ authority to regulate “if it exerts a substantial economic
effect on interstate commerce.”33
In response to this lack of an explicit Congressional statement tying the Gun-Free School
Zones Act to interstate commerce, Congress revised the Act to add the following statement of
intent:
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and
criminal gangs;…
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may
fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and
gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;…
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the
Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's schools by
enactment of this subsection.34
This language could be recycled to, “The failure of some states to recognize the right to selfdefense
with a gun certainly means “ordinary citizens … may fear to travel to or through certain
parts of the country due to concern about violent crime….” The enormous economic impact of
travel within the United States (2.1 billion person-trips in 2014, with an average of $656 of
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
31 Id. at 1347.
32 Id., at 1360. (“Although both the House and Senate sponsors of the Gun-Free School Zones Act made fairly lengthy
floor statements about it, neither congressman had anything to say about commerce in their remarks.… The failure
of section 922(q) to honor the traditional division of functions between the Federal Government and the States was
commented upon by President Bush when he signed the Crime Control Act of 1990…”)
33 Id., at 1361.
34 Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 STAT. 3009.
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 11
expenditures per trip, or $1.377 trillion35) certainly allows Congress authority to intervene in what
would otherwise be a purely local matter.
E. States’ Rights Objections
States’ rights objections to requiring recognition might have been persuasive in 1950, but a lot
of sludge has flowed under that bridge in the meantime: Racial segregation laws36; miscegenation
bans37; contraceptive bans38; abortion bans39; sodomy bans40; same-sex marriage bans41; and
doubtless hundreds of others that do not immediately come to mind that all involve pre-emption
of state and local laws. Opponents of national concealed carry reciprocity will either have to
repudiate that substantial list of abrogation of states’ rights, or come up with some very clever way
to distinguish them from pre-emption of state laws concerning concealed carry.
F. Practical Concerns
Public safety would seem the hardest argument; the number of out of state visitors carrying
concealed weapons will be dwarfed by the number of residents lawfully carrying firearms in the
“may-issue” states and resident criminals carrying firearms contrary to state law. Even then, the
evidence that widespread concealed carry represents a public safety threat is at most, very thin.42
Certainly there is more reason to fear interstate drivers who are driving several ton machines, at
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
35 U.S. Travel Association, Domestic Travel Market Report 2015, https://www.ustravel.org/research/do...-travelmarket-
report-2015, last accessed December 26, 2016.
36 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).
37 Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967).
38 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965).
39 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
40 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003).
41 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2071 (2015).
42 For an analysis of the Violence Policy Center’s false representation of the risks, see Clayton E. Cramer, Violence
Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers: Less Than It Appears,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2095754, last accessed December 23, 2016.
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 12
high speeds, in unfamiliar locations, with differing traffic laws. Motor vehicles cause more deaths
each year (35,398 for 2014)43 than guns (33,736 for 2014).44
Differing state issuance standards on issuance might be an argument if the standards were
really radically different. But every state disqualifies convicted felons, domestic violence
misdemeanants, and those who have been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals; these are
in conformance with federal law disabling firearms possession. Only the often corrupt issuance
policies of “may-issue” states are really so different.
Most states have training requirements. States that do not, appear to have had no reason to add
them. Fear of criminal prosecution for improper use seems to be an effective deterrent in the
“shall-issue” states; it is hard to imagine that this would disappear when crossing the border from
Nevada to California.
There are some slight differences in minimum age from state to state. Idaho directs sheriffs to
issue licenses to 18 to 20 year olds.45 A national law might require states to recognize licenses
only from those 21 years old and above.
Some states issue non-resident licenses; other states only recognize licenses issued to residents
of other states. A national law could require that states were only required to recognize licenses
issued by the licensee’s state of residence. This would solve the objection that California residents
might carry concealed on Florida non-resident licenses.
__________________________________________________ _________
43 National Center for Health Statistics, Accidents or Unintentional Injuries,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm, last accessed December 23, 2016.
44 National Center for Health Statistics, Accidents or Unintentional Injuries,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm, last accessed December 23, 2016. This includes homicides, suicides,
and accidents.
45 Idaho Code § 18-3302(21)(“ The sheriff of a county shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to those
individuals between the ages of eighteen (1
in section 18-3302K(4), Idaho Code, would otherwise meet the requirements for issuance of a license….”)
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION 13
III. Summary
Congress has authority to require states to recognize concealed carry licenses from any state
and even to prohibit businesses from refusing to allow licensees to carry on private property.
Passage of such a law has the potential to expand interstate commerce and improve safety for
licensees across the nation.
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Senator
License is not the answer, but a submission/admission to mere privileged status.
Rights do not require license, nor can they be taxed nor regulated.
No hurry, but I am looking forward to comparing apples to apples, around here.
Esquire
H.R. 38 isn't a licensing bill it's a reciprocal bill.
I have been a strong advocate of abolishing permits but until the trend of non-permitted public carry grows and it is growing, the rest of us in the other 43 states will be required to pay a poll tax, beg the state's permission and some will be required to be forced to take mandated training in order to exercise a right.
We never lost our 2A rights in one fatal blow but rather an incremental death via a thousand lashes and the absolute worst offenders are those who rule in leftist blue communist/social states using the term "Democrap".
And we will not restore those rights in one fatal blow.
Bloomturd pledged $25 million... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...d-carry-237056
Huh? I wonder why?Everytown for Gun Safety, funded by Michael Bloomberg, plans to spend more than $25 million in an attempt to stop what’s known as “concealed carry reciprocity” from becoming law.
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Senator
Thank you RamRoddoc. Some people just do not care about fighting for what is right or to restore our rights if it can only be done a little at a time. There is such a thing as at least moving in the right direction to better things.
John 14:6 New Living Translation (NLT)6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
Esquire
I agree with and embrace the strict constitutionalism but reality is we won't get the states nor the fed to respect our bill of rights immediately. I sincerely wish the states would work this out without federal intervention but figure the odds.
I would ultimately prefer states to recognize other states via the "Full faith and credit" clause in Section 1 of Article 4 of the Constitution.
But what will be effective and attainable?
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Banned
Walls of text with no points made in relation to them by the person posting is the worst form of "posting." Within the first paragraph I found a mistaken assertion, that national reciprocity is similar to driver's licenses being accepted from every state, in every state. That's total BS. Driver's license reciprocity flows from a voluntary pact amongst and between the states. There is no federal mandate involved at all.
The Driver's License Compact and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators has nothing to do with the Federal government. It is an association of member states only and 5 states are not even members of the association.
AAMVA - Drivers License Compacts
National Center for Interstate Compacts Database
http://www.aamva.org/uploadedFiles/M...s%20Manual.pdf
AAMVA - About AAMVA
For nationwide concealed carry to be remotely equivalent to the driver's license compact, the Federal government would have to have absolutely no involvement in it either.The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization developing model programs in motor vehicle administration, law enforcement and highway safety. The association also serves as an information clearinghouse in these areas, and acts as the international spokesman for these interests.
If your shill-author can't get through the first paragraph without either making a mistake, or lying about the a voluntary pact being largely similar to a federal mandate, then I sure as Hell ain't gonna pour through those thousands of words trying to find some crumb of truth and accuracy in his analysis.
Like I said - I've been debunking the mistaken/dishonest/wholly made-up propaganda of the Commerce Clause government-empowering sheeple pushing for this abortion of the Second Amendment since Day One. I'll give your champion-author credit for putting that nonsense about driver's licenses at the top so I didn't have to go through the whole thing to determine that he doesn't know what he's talking about, or that if he does, that he's a lyin' POS propagandist with no less of an appetite for rights than all the hacks who have, or will, sign onto this bill.
Walls of text without a word from the poster is very bad form, especially when it's so easily debunked right off the top of another knowledgeable poster's head.
Blues
Esquire
Everytown for gun safety and Bloomturd thank you for your tireless support.
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Esquire
Oh and go here Gabby has a page to fight this overreaching of the fed, sign up.
http://action.americansforresponsibl...oncealed-carry
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Banned
All you prove with this nonsense is that neither you, Everytown or Gabby Giffords understands the perils of putting rights under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. If Gabby and Everytown did understand it, they'd sit quietly waiting for it to pass and the next Dem Congress and/or president would be called upon by them to utilize the Commerce Clause just exactly like ObamaCare does, and yes, even Roe vs. Wade is subject to Commerce Clause "interpretation." And if you understood what you were pushing for here, you wouldn't support it. I can only say that because I believe that you are sincerely pro-gun-rights and that it's an honest mistake you have made by signing onto this anti-Second Amendment overreach of Congress. If you are honestly and fully aware of the history of Commerce Clause overreach that this bill will most assuredly fall victim to if passed, and you still support it, you are hereby outed as a full-blown statist, no better, really no different even, than Everytown or Gabby.
Let me simplify this for you:
Premise: Commerce involves transactions between people
Premise: Congress can regulate commerce (where regulate means "control" rather than "make regular")
Conclusion: therefore Congress can control people.
And that conclusion is precisely what you're supporting whether or not you understand or realize it. In the end, if this passes, it will be Everytown and Giffords thanking you for your support, and GA and AL and most other Southern states that have made progress, some tremendous, some not so much, but progress nonetheless, towards expanding privileges rather than restricting them, will end up looking just like CA and CT, or worse. You can't debunk that statement using any historical analysis of Commerce Clause precedent in this country. It would take more characters than a single post could hold for me to do exactly that to substantiate everything I've said about it in this thread. You can disregard the warnings I have attempted to impart, but you won't be able to disregard the consequences to your gun-carrying-privileges if this passes, because to do so would be to deny historical fact.
Blues
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote