There are tons of laws that states cannot enact and for which the feds would be all over them if they did. I don't know why guns get a pass.

It's not "policing" if it's violating a right guaranteed in the Const. And since it's specifically mentioned in the Const. (unlike abortion), the 10th Amendment shouldn't apply here.

I cannot find the relevant ruling(s), but although the Constitution was originally held/intended to apply only to the US Congress’ actions/laws, the First Amendment, among others, was later ruled by the Supreme Court to apply to all government bodies, not just Federal. As a specific example, Miranda type warnings are required to be given by all law enforcement agencies as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, not just LE agencies like the FBI or the armed forces’.

I’m certainly not going to say it would happen, but it’s not inconceivable that the Court could rule that the Second Amendment’s protections applied everywhere and that included the right to “bear arms” with all that signifies. I haven’t followed all the developments arising from the Bruen decision, but everything I’ve seen indicates it applies nationwide.

Many people don’t like when states’ rights are overridden—until they do.

As I say, I cannot find the applicable ruling(s) regarding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments for some reason, so if any attorneys want to chime in to clarify or correct me, please do.

quote:

Many people don’t like when states’ rights are overridden—until they do.

Yup, and on the flip side, bad rulings, even by the Supreme Court, can be overturned. As an example, lest we forget so soon, the Supreme Court decision re: Roe v. Wade was considered 'settled law', until it wasn't!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
There are tons of laws that states cannot enact and for which the feds would be all over them if they did. I don't know why guns get a pass.

It's not "policing" if it's violating a right guaranteed in the Const. And since it's specifically mentioned in the Const. (unlike abortion), the 10th Amendment shouldn't apply here.

The 2nd A isn't a blanket endorsement of whatever firearms you want can be yours to carry in any manner you desire. I read, "Shall not be infringed" all the time as though it's ironclad. It isn't. People who are mentally ill, drug users, convicted felons and others are routinely denied firearms and no one here has ever made a serious argument for why mentally ill people should have access to firearms under the 2nd A.

The Supremes are already said that your right to bear arms does not mean that anyone can conceal anytime and anywhere.

^^ NOBODY but you is making such arguments. You seem to be making them to project claims not in evidence here, presumably in order to defeat them. This thread is about Reciprocity between all 50 states re: CCW Permits...That's it! Drug dealers, convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc, are simply NOT part of the discussion!

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

All of our constitutional rights can be regulated to some degree, under some circumstances. Even our right to free speech is not completely unregulated. And that regulation is pursuant to the general police power of the States, which is the power to regulate for health, safety and welfare. And that is a STATE power, not a federal power. There is no general federal police power. (But the feds pervert the power to regulate commerce to find a de facto police power.) We shouldn't allow a usurpation of the States' police power just because we like the result. Because we won't like the next result. And the one after that.

quote:

This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

nah, I think we need to use every tool in the box to get what we want, you know, like the democrats do.
that "we're better than that/them" is what caused a lot of these problems we're facing now

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ NOBODY but you is making such arguments. You seem to be making them to project claims not in evidence here, presumably in order to defeat them. This thread is about Reciprocity between all 50 states re: CCW Permits...That's it! Drug dealers, convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc, are simply NOT part of the discussion!

Everyone here is pro gun, myself included, but I'm not delusioned by the wet dream of national reciprocity just because Trump is the president elect, Republicans will control the Senate and probably the House too.

It makes no difference if I'm the only one here, on a gun forum, saying there's no federal authority to tell states how they will manage concealed carry. It's a dream. If it was a bona fide, no doubt about it kind of thing, this could have passed during Trump 2016-2018. The Supremes have already ruled that the 2nd A doesn't mean you get to conceal carry when and where you want, without restrictions.

There's no mechanism to make any state accept the CCW laws or permits of every other state. It just isn't an area reserved to the Feds under the constitution.

Since there are approximately 34 states that already have reciprocity agreements with each other, the better focus would be on getting the 16 remaining states to change the reciprocity agreements.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

All of our constitutional rights can be regulated to some degree, under some circumstances. Even our right to free speech is not completely unregulated. And that regulation is pursuant to the general police power of the States, which is the power to regulate for health, safety and welfare. And that is a STATE power, not a federal power. There is no general federal police power. (But the feds pervert the power to regulate commerce to find a de facto police power.) We shouldn't allow a usurpation of the States' police power just because we like the result. Because we won't like the next result. And the one after that.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very true.

I'm making the argument that 2A should be absolute. It will work itself out on who should or shouldn't carry a weapon right quick.

That being said, I also believe mental health care needs a radical new approach with institutions and psychedelic therapy.

I think I'd be fairly happy if there were a general recognition in Govt. that Federal < State < Human when it comes to rights (or more precisely, the privilege to restrict/abuse them). The Bill of Rights seems to be based on this notion, and many judicial rulings over the centuries appear to validate it. Not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, just trying to make sense of things.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Peteroniman:

quote:

This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

nah, I think we need to use every tool in the box to get what we want, you know, like the democrats do.
that "we're better than that/them" is what caused a lot of these problems we're facing now

No, it makes the Constitution meaningless to do that. It would make all the protections of the Constitution essentially void. If we don't insist on adherence to the rules, anytime the other side can get enough of Congress to do something and have a Supreme Court that will go along, they can do it.

I would LOVE it if Mr Trump revoked all previous Presidential orders that are gun related such as the ones done by Bush Sr and Reagan banning certain guns from being imported.

Only recipropicity required is constitutional carry. All infringements to keep and bear are by definition, Unconstitutional. As the 2nd has been incorporated there is no "States right". It is a right reserved to the people. Justice dept should sue all non constitutional carry states. With the unlimited budget, and fast track through the courts. Should be resolved very quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
I'm making the argument that 2A should be absolute. It will work itself out on who should or shouldn't carry a weapon right quick.

That being said, I also believe mental health care needs a radical new approach with institutions and psychedelic therapy.

The Bill of Rights is so simple that people think it must be complicated! Yes, the 2nd is absolute, because it is written that way in clear language.

2A) RKBA shall not be infringed.

5A) No person shall be deprived life, LIBERTY, or property without first receiving Due Process.

Ergo, someone adjudicated mentally ill or guilty of a crime can be deprived of their RKBA as prescribed in law. The rest of us should be able to Carry On! Any "arm" is something we have a pre-existing right to possess. No state permission required.

I’ve always been fascinated why nobody has tested the full faith and credit clause of CCW. I think you can logically split the baby and say MY STATE (FL in this example) gives me a CCW your state of MA or HI or wherever you may as well grow a third hand first. It’s still respectful of states rights but also that hostile state must respect other states documents. Does that give me super rights when visiting a hostile state ? Maybe. Has a CCW full faith and credit test ever been tested at the federal district or Supreme Court level ?

If leftists can have a states right meltdown and some states a woman can have an abortion the day before birth and some states will say 6 weeks or some other cutoff is the limit, I don’t see how it’s much different for CCW.

quote:

No, it makes the Constitution meaningless to do that. It would make all the protections of the Constitution essentially void. If we don't insist on adherence to the rules, anytime the other side can get enough of Congress to do something and have a Supreme Court that will go along, they can do it.

fair point

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
I’ve always been fascinated why nobody has tested the full faith and credit clause of CCW. I think you can logically split the baby and say MY STATE (FL in this example) gives me a CCW your state of MA or HI or wherever you may as well grow a third hand first. It’s still respectful of states rights but also that hostile state must respect other states documents. Does that give me super rights when visiting a hostile state ? Maybe. Has a CCW full faith and credit test ever been tested at the federal district or Supreme Court level ?

If leftists can have a states right meltdown and some states a woman can have an abortion the day before birth and some states will say 6 weeks or some other cutoff is the limit, I don’t see how it’s much different for CCW.

As the Supremes said last summer, abortion is not a protected constitutional right but instead a state issue. They very likely would follow the same rationale if presented with a nationwide CCW issue.

There are a number of sites that have discussed, and dissected this argument and the bottom line, up front, is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was never intended by the framers for the use you want. It was a limited recognition clause so you didn't have the other states having original jurisdiction over issues and cases that have already been decided in other states.

As an example, if you sue me in CA and lose, you would be precluded from then running to NV and filing the same suit to get another bite of the apple. If you lost again, the FF&C Clause would bar you from trying it in the other 48 states.

With firearms, the biggest argument in favor of a national reciprocity bill is that it would force CA to accept your FL license. What if CA doesn't allow CCW? There's no federal interest under the constitution that says CA must now suddenly have an involuntary CCW permit program.

Same with attorney licensing. If you're licensed in CA, it doesn't mean other states have to recognize your CA license and allow to you to practice there, without passing their bar admission requirements. Same with accountants, cosmetologists or any other occupation that requires a CA license.

The framers didn't intend the FF&C Clause to be expanded as you're suggesting and there's no federal constitutional authority to make, what are state licenses in all 50 states, federal license and permits.

I'm not popular around here when I say I like the national CCW idea but follow it up with an explanation of why it's not going to pass and ultimately become law.

As jhe said earlier, the constitutional paths and guidelines have to always be followed, even if it's for a sacred desire we all have.

34 states have reciprocity agreements with themselves. The other 16 are the issue and they need to be where the attention is at to get to true national reciprocity.

I honestly do not think that there is a legitimate argument for saying the First, Fourth, and Fifth are universal, but not the Second.

In nuance, maybe. States/localities have long had various zoning restrictions/permitting requirements to protect society from rock concerts in the middle of residential neighborhoods, etc, but to deny the right to bear arms at all, does not seem possible.

quote:

Originally posted by 10X-Shooter:
I would LOVE it if Mr Trump revoked all previous Presidential orders that are gun related such as the ones done by Bush Sr and Reagan banning certain guns from being imported.

Reagan sold us out on the machine-gun ban. He was not the best 2A ally. Remember, he put some additional gun control in place in Cali when he was governor, because of a panic over the Black Panthers. Trump did us dirty on bump stocks. I'll take him in a New York minute over Harris, but . . .