[J_Rico]

On every HR 822 thread I have seen, several people claim that HR 822 attacks state's rights.

I do not get that at all, but am willing to listen to someone that wants to explain their position.

From where I see it (and this is a repeat for anyone who has been in the same threads as have I):

1 - This is not a state's rights issue.

2 - The RTKBA is an individual right recognized and protected (but not granted) by the 2A.

3 - The 2A tells the feds they should not infringe upon that right and incorporation tells states the same thing.

4 - This bill pushes back the barriers that some states have erected against the exercising of this individual right.

5 - It does not attack state's rights unless you consider the denial of an individual right to be an exercise in state's rights.

6 - Let's say Illionois passed a law that citizens could not mention the 2A or the RTKBA. For any reason. And the feds stepped in and told them to stop interfering in the 1A rights of citizens, would you start complaining about the feds meddling in the state rights of Illinois?

To me the biggest problems I see with this bill is it does not defend our rights in IL or DC.

So, how is this a state's rights issue?

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

The issue revolves around the misuse of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the three branches of the federal government. Remember, the Constitution in this context is the federal constitution, not that of the individual states, and the same with the Bill of Rights. The fear that folks have is due to the history of abuse by the high court and congress which could then just create more restrictions, requirements, and licensing in things which are the concerns of states.

In other words, when we allow the federal government to do something like this, before you know it, their reach gets extended and for those states which have few restrictions on the carrying of arms, their citizens might find themselves loosing their freedoms because the feds want a "level playing field". This can be very dangerous when we are dealing with a basic and fundamental right of a free people.

In my state open carry is the normal, or default, mode of carrying a defensive arm, whereas concealing it requires permission from our employees. I could see the feds either outlawing open carry or requiring a permit to carry in any mode. I see them outlawing it because all of the more populous states do not allow open carry (New York, California, Florida, etc.).

So once the feds enter the picture, you can bet it will get messy. History is all the proof I need when I say this. While today, it might just say to treat carry permits the same as driver's licenses, tomorrow it could say everyone must adhere to a national standard and that standard will be subject to whomever is in office in Washington.

 

[DaneA]

Besides what has already been mentioned in many threads. I will add that if this was a federal issue then it would be the right to carry in any state. Instead this bill is forcing states to accept other states permits and that is a violation of states rights.

 

[Bren]

The supporters see it from the point of view of living in anti-gun states. Those of us in states that are more pro-gun than the rest of the country will ever be, like Kentucky, see it as a chance for the feds to pull us down to their level. It's always relative to whether what is likely to happen will be better or worse than what you've got. it probably looks great to peole in Illinois or New Jersey.

 

[J_Rico]

Besides what has already been mentioned in many threads. I will add that if this was a federal issue then it would be the right to carry in any state. Instead this bill is forcing states to accept other states permits and that is a violation of states rights.

Thanks. I can somewhat see the state's right issue when you bring up the acceptance of other state's licenses.

I do not agree, but I see your point.

 

[J_Rico]

and licensing in things which are the concerns of states.

But the 2A is a federal issue. Not a state's issue.

Is it the fact that it is based up on the existing state licenses that bugs you? If the feds just passed a 'Consitutional Carry' law, would that still be a state's right issue?

 

[J_Rico]

The supporters see it from the point of view of living in anti-gun states. Those of us in states that are more pro-gun than the rest of the country will ever be, like Kentucky, see it as a chance for the feds to pull us down to their level. It's always relative to whether what is likely to happen will be better or worse than what you've got. it probably looks great to peole in Illinois or New Jersey.

How does this bill pull Kentucky down? Does the honoring of all oout of state permits in some way pull Kentucky down?

BTW, big fan of the Kentucky gun laws.

 

[rjkobbeman]

How does this bill pull Kentucky down? Does the honoring of all oout of state permits in some way pull Kentucky down?

BTW, big fan of the Kentucky gun laws.

It has the potential to pull other states down because, once the Feds start telling states they have to honor other states' permits, there is a high probability that they will start dictating what the requirements are to obtain a permit... in order to implement some uniform standards. This means they could essentially re-write a state's CCW permit process and CCW rule/laws. The more strict (anti-gun) states could get some relief and the more lenient (pro-gun) states could get more restrictive.

Unless the Feds implement Constitutional Carry across the land, I don't want them medling with this. It will not end well in my opinion.

 

[sigchaser723]

Besides what has already been mentioned in many threads. I will add that if this was a federal issue then it would be the right to carry in any state. Instead this bill is forcing states to accept other states permits and that is a violation of states rights.

So by your logic other states shouldn't need to recognize our drivers licenses or marriage certificates? Its all the same thing laws differ but still they are recognized so why not for ccw?

 

[cowboy1964]

I don't get the argument either really. The 2nd amendment applies to all states but when the federal gov. tries to pass something supportive of the 2nd amendment then all of a sudden that's a problem and should be left to individual states. If a state wants to ban guns, is that ok? How is that different from a state that wants to "ban" your constitutional right to bear arms by not honoring your states carry permit? That's also violation of equal protection, giving constitutional rights to state citizens and denying them to non-state citizens.

Driving is not a consitutional right but yet we make all states honor each other's licenses.

 

[cowboy1964]

It has the potential to pull other states down because, once the Feds start telling states they have to honor other states' permits, there is a high probability that they will start dictating what the requirements are to obtain a permit... in order to implement some uniform standards. This means they could essentially re-write a state's CCW permit process and CCW rule/laws. The more strict (anti-gun) states could get some relief and the more lenient (pro-gun) states could get more restrictive.

They could do all that at any time, has nothing to do with this particular National Reciprocity act.

 

[J_Rico]

It has the potential to pull other states down because, once the Feds start telling states they have to honor other states' permits, there is a high probability that they will start dictating what the requirements are to obtain a permit... in order to implement some uniform standards. This means they could essentially re-write a state's CCW permit process and CCW rule/laws. The more strict (anti-gun) states could get some relief and the more lenient (pro-gun) states could get more restrictive.

Unless the Feds implement Constitutional Carry across the land, I don't want them medling with this. It will not end well in my opinion.

So, you do not think that the law as written attacks state's rights? You think that the precendent it sets may weaken state's rights?

Please correct me if I read that wrong.

And I agree that Consitutional Carry should be the law of the land.

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

and licensing in things which are the concerns of states.

But the 2A is a federal issue. Not a state's issue.

Is it the fact that it is based up on the existing state licenses that bugs you? If the feds just passed a 'Consitutional Carry' law, would that still be a state's right issue?

While we might wish to think it's not a states' rights issue, it really is whether we agree to see it as that or not. Every state has its own constitution while defines how a given state's government is to operate. The federal constitution is really just for the federal government and how it is to operate. The Bill of Rights protects Americans from transgressions by the feds... at least this was the intent of the Founders.

The problem with a national constitutional carry law is the fact that it would be instituted, controlled, and run by the federal government and you can bet once they have their fingers in that pie, their whole body is close behind. I could easily see mandatory firearms training requirements before purchase, purchases permits, licensing, permits tied to specific handguns, fingerprinting, modes of carry requirements including holsters with authorized retention levels, and a host of other mandates, minimum "safety" measures, and controls.

So I am not of a mind to go that route. The last thing I would want is to New Jersey Virginia.

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

So, you do not think that the law as written attacks state's rights? You think that the precendent it sets may weaken state's rights?

Please correct me if I read that wrong.

And I agree that Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land.

Here we agree but I don't know an easy answer for this one in and of itself. For example, let's say such a law was passed and I decided to carry in my normal manner into Washington, DC and then on into Maryland. Well my normal manner is open carry most always and I would wager that neither Washington nor Maryland is going to be receptive of my carry mode. This means that I would now have to carry concealed when entering those places and any other locations where an openly displayed handgun is not welcome.

This means that my rights would be affected in a negative manner and I would therefore have to concede to a different (lower) standard than my home state when traveling outside of my state's borders. So who wins in this one? As it is now, one of the states where I normally travel to recognizes my CHP but does not allow OC. I can live with this because I am a guest in their state and that is their law.

This is an interesting discussion and I think it's good we cover this issue.

 

[Bren]

How does this bill pull Kentucky down? Does the honoring of all oout of state permits in some way pull Kentucky down?

BTW, big fan of the Kentucky gun laws.

You must have mssed all of the other discussions of this bill - the problem those of us who oppose it see, is that it gives the feds a foot in the door, to start dictating requirements for the states to qualify under the law.

 

[Oso]

You must have mssed all of the other discussions of this bill - the problem those of us who oppose it see, is that it gives the feds a foot in the door, to start dictating requirements for the states to qualify under the law.

In case you haven't noticed, the feds already have a foot in the door. They are the federal government. They don't need this legislature to advance their agenda. By your argument, nobody should ever introduce any pro-gun legislature as it may lead to anti-gun legislature.

Does anybody actually have any arguments against national reciprocity that include facts and not what if's?

 

[Oso]

I agree that constitutional carry should be the law of the land. Technically it is, but the government won't enforce it. National reciprocity is a move in the right direction. We just need to keep moving that way. Standing still gets us nowhere.

 

[JK-linux]

.....

 

[J_Rico]

You must have mssed all of the other discussions of this bill - the problem those of us who oppose it see, is that it gives the feds a foot in the door, to start dictating requirements for the states to qualify under the law.

So, you do not have a problem with the law as written? It is fear of future legislation that worries you?

From where I sit the feds have had their foot in the door since the 30s.

 

[Donn57]

On every HR 822 thread I have seen, several people claim that HR 822 attacks state's rights.

I do not get that at all, but am willing to listen to someone that wants to explain their position.

From where I see it (and this is a repeat for anyone who has been in the same threads as have I):

1 - This is not a state's rights issue.

Yes, it is. The Feds want to force states to accept the permits of individuals who do not meet a state's requirement for getting a permit. That stomps on the right of the state to decide who gets a permit and under what circumstances.

2 - The RTKBA is an individual right recognized and protected (but not granted) by the 2A.

The Second Amendment is not at play in this bill. The bill uses the Commerce Clause to try to justify usurping state rights. The rights of the states to regulate the carry of firearms is, for now, settled law. The SCOTUS has ruled as such.

3 - The 2A tells the feds they should not infringe upon that right and incorporation tells states the same thing.

Nope. As mentioned, the SCOTUS has ruled that "reasonable restrictions" are Constitutional. Until that decision is reversed, the states have the right to decide who can carry what under which circumstances.

4 - This bill pushes back the barriers that some states have erected against the exercising of this individual right.

It does so by usurping the right of the state to use "reasonable restrictions" to decide who can carry and what they must do to obtain permission to carry. Again, you may not agree with this, but for now permits for carry are considered Constitutional by the SCOTUS.

5 - It does not attack state's rights unless you consider the denial of an individual right to be an exercise in state's rights.

Yes, denial of permission to carry a concealed weapon is currently a right or power of the state. SCOTUS has ruled as such.

6 - Let's say Illionois passed a law that citizens could not mention the 2A or the RTKBA. For any reason. And the feds stepped in and told them to stop interfering in the 1A rights of citizens, would you start complaining about the feds meddling in the state rights of Illinois?

No, because the SCOTUS has not ruled that the states have a right to restrict speech about RTKBA or the Second Amendment. When they make that ruling, then the Feds would need to back off. I don't expect that ruling to be made anytime in the foreseeable future.

To me the biggest problems I see with this bill is it does not defend our rights in IL or DC.

Because the bill's so-called authority is based on the Commerce Clause and not the Second Amendment, there is no legal way to force IL or DC to accept permits since they do not issue permits themselves. That is an acknowledgment by the drafters of the bill that the states have the right to require permits and thus to decide who gets a permit. If the authority for the bill was the Second Amendment, the drafters would simply have introduced a bill that required all states to allow concealed or open carry without the need for a permit. That's not going to happen.

This bill is not your friend. The people pushing this bill are well-intentioned, but misguided. Hopefully the bill dies in the Senate.