Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2016

[JohnyMac]

MrsMac and I attended a amateur radio breakfast yesterday. During the breakfast the discussion changed from ohms, resisters, antenna's and other fun radio stuff to the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2016.


 In short one of the folks at the breakfast was a FFL dealer and reported that his sources in the US House had told him that the Act was ready to leave committee for a vote in February. A discussion soon followed amongst the group debating the plus & minus's of such a law.

My position is/was that the law would infringe on states rights specifically the Tenth Amendment to the BOR's.

Anyhow, the debate moved off to other politically minded discussions.

Well as I lay in bed waiting for sleep to come last night, I replayed the discussion we had earlier in the day on this subject and vowed to myself to look into the next day.

Here is the verbiage of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

After rereading the 10th Amendment I am changing my position on this subject on the basis that the 2nd Amendment of the BOR's is protected under the Constitution so in essence the states have to recognize a conceal carry reciprocity in all 50 states and territories.

What are your thoughts?

[JoJo]

I’m not a lawyer but the way I see it is “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” says it all. Any gun, ammo or magazine law made infringes on the second amendment. 

[pkveazey]

The supreme court ruled many years ago that any law that conflicts with the constitution is an unlawful law and does not have to be enforced or obeyed. It doesn't matter if it is a Federal law or a State law. That has not stopped the liberals from passing a multitude of laws that conflict with the constitution. Now, on to a history lesson: The founding fathers had strong feelings about not having a standing army. They did not want the government to be strong enough to overpower the people. That's why they included the second amendment in the Bill Of Rights. We, the people are supposed to provide for the common defense. Therefore, we are supposed to be armed. Not only are we supposed to be armed, we are supposed to be armed exactly the same as our military. We were armed exactly as well as our military until about 1935, when our right to own Artillary and Machine guns was legislated away. Today, we can only own that sort of weapon if we apply for and pay for a TAX STAMP for each individual weapon of that type. Even then, the restrictions are beyond belief. Shall not be infringed has been infringed so many times that it is now totally ignored.

[Kbop]

I’m not a lawyer but the way I see it is “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” says it all. Any gun, ammo or magazine law made infringes on the second amendment.

i'm not a lawyer either - i can figure out how large businesses should/could be people -  @JoJo 

[JohnyMac]

All good points pkveazey. If folks want to learn more about gun history in the USA read the book by John Ross called Unintended Consequences.

Ross's novel was the beginning of genera of novels like, Patriots, Enemies: Foreign and Domestic, et cetera. When this book came out the FBI supposedly "requested" several pages to be omitted or changed. Ross did change them in the second addition. Which is why the first edition is running in the $400- per book area.

I tried to by a newer addition oh back around 2006 or so. When I tried to order it at Barnes & Noble I was told by the clerk. "the book is out of production." Then she said, "interesting. This book is no allowed to be sold in any of our Canadian stores."

A friend finally sent me a e-version of the book and it was amazing as it mirrored what is happening in the USA to a tee. 

[Erick]

I’m not a lawyer but the way I see it is “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” says it all. Any gun, ammo or magazine law made infringes on the second amendment.

Quoted for truth..

Also Drivers Licenses are recognized nationally on the principle that every state must honor  alegal act by another

[Grudgie]

The supreme court ruled many years ago that any law that conflicts with the constitution is an unlawful law and does not have to be enforced or obeyed. It doesn't matter if it is a Federal law or a State law. That has not stopped the liberals from passing a multitude of laws that conflict with the constitution. Now, on to a history lesson: The founding fathers had strong feelings about not having a standing army. They did not want the government to be strong enough to overpower the people. That's why they included the second amendment in the Bill Of Rights. We, the people are supposed to provide for the common defense. Therefore, we are supposed to be armed. Not only are we supposed to be armed, we are supposed to be armed exactly the same as our military. We were armed exactly as well as our military until about 1935, when our right to own Artillary and Machine guns was legislated away. Today, we can only own that sort of weapon if we apply for and pay for a TAX STAMP for each individual weapon of that type. Even then, the restrictions are beyond belief. Shall not be infringed has been infringed so many times that it is now totally ignored.

Exactly.

I ask, what is the point in discussing the legality of a new law, when the very same government proposing the new law does not bind itself to its previous laws? The discussion is meaningless.

[Nemo]

All good points pkveazey. If folks want to learn more about gun history in the USA read the book by John Ross called Unintended Consequences.

A friend finally sent me a e-version of the book and it was amazing as it mirrored what is happening in the USA to a tee.

Can that be copied and forwarded?


As far as the recognition, all states should recognize all others.  But limits on in that state carry will quickly become strong and tight in some of them.  eg-- NY and NJ I suspect would require no carry anywhere not posted as carry is permitted, no carry where alcohol sold or permitted and the like.

As far as the rest, that is expanding routinely and although I like the idea of Fed law recognizing national reciprocity, I am concerned about opening the door for national limits, fed permits, requirements and the like.

Nemo