National CCW reciprocity!

[Bret4207]

Sen Vitter plans to introduce a national bill for CCW reciprocity.


Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill next week.

Senator Vitter had been working closely with Gun Owners of America to draft and file a reciprocity amendment a few weeks ago, but that amendment, unfortunately, never saw the light of day -- thanks to powerful opponents inside the Senate.

However, Sen. Vitter has continued undaunted and last week sent a Dear Colleague letter to his fellow senators, asking them to cosponsor his forthcoming bill, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.

States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.

Citizens should not be forced to sacrifice their right to self-defense at the state line. The Vitter bill will allow more Americans to defend themselves away from their home state.

Action: Please urge your two Senators to become original cosponsors of the Vitter "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act." You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

Here's a link to the GOA website for more info-
http://www.gunowners.org/a061808.htm

Write, call, email, visit your Congresscritter and tell him you WANT this. Spread the word among your family and friends and every website you visit. Action is the only way to win these battles.

[jackley]

I hope it goes though!!

Jerry

[AZ-Stew]

The only thing wrong with it is that it DOESN'T force IL and WI to observe Constitutional rights. Once folks from other States start carrying legally in those two states, the pressure will be on their legislatures to allow their own citizens to carry.

Any movement in the right direction is good. Maybe we'll have to take it a piece at a time.

Regards,

Stew

[Bret4207]

The bill as I understand it wouldn't force a State to allow carry if it doesn't already have a carry law in effect. States rights don't ya know,

[Boerrancher]

If IL, and WI will not recognize My CCW, then that is their right to do so. Since I have never left anything in either of those states that is worth going back for, I will never set foot in either of them. THAT is my right as an individual. I don't have to spend any of my money in either place, nor do I need to send it their for internet or mail order purchases. I will be sure, when I find something on the web or or mail order book that is from IL or WI, to email that business and let them know that even though they have a product that I would like I will not be buying from them do to their state's anti-gun policies.

I can promise you that if every gun owner was to do this, these states would eventually change. It is possible for those out side the state to put enough economic pressure on that state to force changes. It just takes some effort and some time.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch.

Joe

[AZ-Stew]

If IL, and WI will not recognize My CCW, then that is their right to do so. Since I have never left anything in either of those states that is worth going back for, I will never set foot in either of them. THAT is my right as an individual. I don't have to spend any of my money in either place, nor do I need to send it their for internet or mail order purchases. I will be sure, when I find something on the web or or mail order book that is from IL or WI, to email that business and let them know that even though they have a product that I would like I will not be buying from them do to their state's anti-gun policies.

I can promise you that if every gun owner was to do this, these states would eventually change. It is possible for those out side the state to put enough economic pressure on that state to force changes. It just takes some effort and some time.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch.

Joe

Joe,

So can we assume you don't use any Lee casting or hand loading products? They're made in WI. Springfield Armory? Pro-Shot cleaning products? Both are in IL. I'm sure there are many others.

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I'd just rather see the Federal Govt. force it on them for out-of-State CCW permit holders. I do pass through both States on occasion and don't feel I should have to give up my rights at their borders. It's the same concept as the ones that States have preempting cities, counties, etc. from passing gun laws more restrictive than State law to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent requirements. Make 'em eat it and then show just cause after a 3-year study period as to why they should be exempted and returned to no-carry status.

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

Joe,

So can we assume you don't use any Lee casting or hand loading products? They're made in WI. Springfield Armory? Pro-Shot cleaning products? Both are in IL. I'm sure there are many others.

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I'd just rather see the Federal Govt. force it on them for out-of-State CCW permit holders. I do pass through both States on occasion and don't feel I should have to give up my rights at their borders. It's the same concept as the ones that States have preempting cities, counties, etc. from passing gun laws more restrictive than State law to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent requirements. Make 'em eat it and then show just cause after a 3-year study period as to why they should be exempted and returned to no-carry status.

Regards,

Stew

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CCCCCHITTTTTTTTTT

how can you be a second ammendment supporter, and then ask the fed govt to force a state to do something...anything!
we are 50 independent states.....not a federal fiefdom. states rights first period. the fed only rules on things that cross state line, tho they often exceed thier authority.

while i do not agree with either states position.....it an authority that belongs to the state, not the fed govmt.

mike in co

[Wicky]

Good luck to you guys. At least some people are behind their citizens.
Will never happen in Australia but we can only live in hope.

[felix]

The second amendment gives me the right to carry within all the federal boundaries. It is the states and towns that say I can't, plus all of the other gun control laws enacted by everyone and his uncle. Sorry, Mike, but that is the way I see the second as intended by the signers of that document. I will not sign up for any kind of unconstitutional CCW. ... felix

[Bret4207]

Gotta say I'm with Mike. I don't believe in the Feds FORCING the States to allow something for a non-citizen that they don't allow their own citizens. But to endorse the concept of reciprical carry is a bit different. I align it most closely with a drivers license- the individual states requirements may differ, but each state has entered into a compact to recognize the others licensing. Makes sense, although I probably don't expalin it well.

[Bret4207]

The second amendment gives me the right to carry within all the federal boundaries. It is the states and towns that say I can't, plus all of the other gun control laws enacted by everyone and his uncle. Sorry, Mike, but that is the way I see the second as intended by the signers of that document. I will not sign up for any kind of unconstitutional CCW. ... felix


This seems to be the crux of the problem I'm encountering. People say that the 2nd Amend. guarentees thier right to carry everywhere. Case law says different. Until the SCOTUS makes a clear and consise decision we're stuck with things the way they are. As far as I'm concerned this is getting the camels nose under the tent- give me an inch and I'll take a mile. It's a start!

[felix]

It is clear and concise, Bret! ......"not be infringed" tells me that the case laws are positively in error in that they are contrary to the constitution. It does not take a literary genius to see that. If I wrote a computer program with a leading conditional phrase with no direct branching criteria, and followed it with a non-conditional phrase, the program will always follow the non-conditional phrase. This is how you parse a sentence in ANY BODY'S language ... felix

[Bret4207]

I realize that Felix, but until the SCOTUS hands down a ruling outling the obvious we're stuck here. I'll not encourage anyone to martyr themselves just to make a point. I know what the Founders meant, you know what they meant, any one with any common sense can see what they meant. But they also estabished the Judicial branch of Gov't which has allowed the original intent to become distorted. So now we're waiting for the same Judicial branch to clean their mess up and the mess the Legislative branch has made too. Meanwhile we're here spinning our wheels. I think if we get the ball rolling it can't hurt things.

If you don't wish to support the bill, don't. At least take action on some of the other bills. We need help if we're ever going to get anywhere.

[felix]

Agreed, Bret! ... felix

[AZ-Stew]

Mike in co is correct. The States can run themselves, BUT, the US Congress controls interstate commerce (tourism IS interstate commerce), and that's exactly where my argument lies. I want to be able to pass through those States, with reasonable allowances for necessary stopping, (food, fuel, short term lodging) without being harassed by local authority when there's statistically NO chance that I will do anything to harm their residents. Should I decide (fat chance) to live there, I would expect to abide by their laws.

Regards,

Stew

[Bret4207]

As one who deals with interstate commerce daily, I assure you, you DO NOT want anyone in gov't making an association between guns and Insterstate Commerce. You mention that and you're opening Pandoras Box. God as my witness, I AM NOT JOKING, don't even whisper that idea!!!!

[AZ-Stew]

(Laughing!)

OK, Bret.

I have to think back to the Gun Owner's Protection Act of 86, though, for a similar scenario. If I can show that I'm intransit through a State to pursue legitimate firearms-related pursuit in another (match, hunting) I am allowed to pass through without complying with that State's laws, so long as my firearm is cased, locked, unloaded, etc., etc. in my vehicle. That's how I presently deal with the IL FOID. I buy an Indiana hunting license before I leave AZ and count on it as my "passport" should I be stopped. Yes, I might initially be harrassed, but it will all come out in court.

Regards,

Stew

[MtGun44]

Wicky,

Is there any hope for gun rights in Australia? I have always thought of
Auzzies as one of our true brothers in many ways - exploring and taming
a new continent and all that stuff, kinda like the Old West in some ways,
at least in my imagination! :-) Only with Martini-Henry's, Sniders, SMLEs
and Webley revolvers instead of Winchester carbines, Sharps rifles and
Colt revolvers!

CCW is legal in SOME form in all our states except Illinois and Wisconsin, altho
Wisconson will go eventually, they have passed it twice and had it vetoed
twice, like we had here in Kansas [the REAL OZ]. Many states allow
reciprocity, but not all. I hold Kansas and Florida CCW permits, which just
about covers all the states that I travel through, so I can carry essentially
all the time, and do - except at work.

Of course, in at least 6-8 states, they may have CCW laws on the books, but
permits are somewhat/very rare, especially in urban areas - right where you would need them.
About 38-39 states have "shall issue" CCW - the gov't MUST issue if you meet the
defined set of written standards, they cannot deny 'just because', OR no permit
required at all - Vermont and Alaska - TRUE free states!

I hope you can manage to reverse the loss of gun rights that you have had,
best of luck to you all in Australia.

And I hope we get nationwide reciprocity in the US!

Bill

[Ron]

Bill, there is no RIGHT to firearms period in Australia. The possession of firearms for sporting purposes/security work is regulated by either an Act of Parliament or in some states, their Criminal Code.

In my state of Victoria, to purchase & own a handgun you must be a member of a recognised Pistol Club. You must attend a set number of club shoots per year to justify the Registrar of Firearms to re issue your licence. Your spouce or near relative must give permission for you to possess a handgun licence.

45 Cals are a No No unless you are a member of a Silly Wets club. Machine guns etc to the best of my knowledge are usually only held under a Firearms Dealers Licence.

However if one wants a silencer for hunting and you can justify your reasons to the Registrar then a licence to possess will normally be issued.

Employees of a security company must be licensed. They can purchase their oen handgun or in some cases they are issued by the company. I believe that security personnel can possess 45 cal.

There is nothing in our state act that allows civilians to 24 hour carry. At one time in my policing career, I was authorised by my District Superintendent to be armed 24 hrs because of threats against my life. These circumstances are about the only time one would be carrying 24 hrs. For the normal Joe Blow, there is no such a thing as carrying a firearm for personal protection and in my opinion there never will be.

Bottom line, possession of a firearm, either long guns or handguns is a privellige in Australia not a right.

[Bret4207]

(Laughing!)

OK, Bret.

I have to think back to the Gun Owner's Protection Act of 86, though, for a similar scenario. If I can show that I'm intransit through a State to pursue legitimate firearms-related pursuit in another (match, hunting) I am allowed to pass through without complying with that State's laws, so long as my firearm is cased, locked, unloaded, etc., etc. in my vehicle. That's how I presently deal with the IL FOID. I buy an Indiana hunting license before I leave AZ and count on it as my "passport" should I be stopped. Yes, I might initially be harrassed, but it will all come out in court.

Regards,

Stew

Stew- Don't try it in NY unless you're enroute to a sanctioned match in NY, or Mass even with a long gun. Heck, I won't carry in Mass even with my shield in my pocket! Not saying it's right, just the way it is. Thats part of the reason I'm in favor of this bill. We've had Investigators arrested in Pa while on duty in the past when they crossed the border to do an interview!

As for the harassment part- doesn't even begin to cover it. NY State law says if you were caught with a handgun in NY without a permit of under the narrow guide lines of the penal law the gun WILL be destroyed. The only way out is to get the DA or County Judge to issue an Order of Non-Destruction. Again,. not saying it's right, but thats the way it is. As for it all coming out in court- Do you really want to spend maybe 2 years and thousands of your own dollars hoping a Judge who may have an atni-gun agenda sees things your way?

Until SCOTUS makes a clear ruling we're stuck with this stuff. That's why we need to get active. Sitting on our hands moaning about the unfairness of it all does nothing to stop these laws from being passed and being used.

[square butte]

Bret, What has your experience been in New York state regarding people moving home and furnishings in a locked moving truck, across NY state - from a state where all of your firearms are legal to another state where all are still legal? When we moved from MT to VT, I used to wake up in a cold sweat thinking about driving across IL an NY with firearms locked in a U-Haul truck. Firearms protection act of 1968 seems to cover this situation and a Sgt. with NY state police told me OK, but not to tary or spend the night in NY. Still not sure about IL. Always wondered what would happen with an LEO who had a burr up his rear about this. Any thoughts or advice for future reference? Tom

[Bret4207]

Bret, What has your experience been in New York state regarding people moving home and furnishings in a locked moving truck, across NY state - from a state where all of your firearms are legal to another state where all are still legal? When we moved from MT to VT, I used to wake up in a cold sweat thinking about driving across IL an NY with firearms locked in a U-Haul truck. Firearms protection act of 1968 seems to cover this situation and a Sgt. with NY state police told me OK, but not to tary or spend the night in NY. Still not sure about IL. Always wondered what would happen with an LEO who had a burr up his rear about this. Any thoughts or advice for future reference? Tom


In plain speak- I have never heard anyone in the NYSP ever speak of any legal way to transit NYS with handguns. In practice if someone were to cross the state with his own personal guns locked away and with no intention of carrying them or using them then "a blind eye" would probably be turned on that issue. I never heard of the '86 GOPA until a few years back, certainly I never heard of it from Division. It's not that Division is anti gun or not concerned with being absoultely correct in application of law, it's just that there are conflicting State laws and the Federal laws aren't always something that are taken into consdieration by the Legislature. There are several lawyers on Division Staff who's sole responsibility is to research and determine what laws are applicable to us and how we shold handle these things. Truth be told the issue you ask about is not something routinely encountered. It would probably be handled as I outlined or some phone calls would be made to determine how to handle the situation.

I don't mean to give the impression that this type of thing is taken lightly. The are a multitude of Federal Laws that affect State Law or Local Law that are just not taken into consideration. It's not intentional, it's just the way it is. Until someone is aware of the Federal Law and see's the conflict and has the wherewithal to address the issue things will remain as they are. Depending on the issue a local law could be either more or less restrictive than the applicable Federal Law and may or may not have previously been addressed and a decision handed down. Trying to determine the facts keeps a lot of otherwise useless attorneys busy and employed.

Now you have a vague idea of why cops get ulcers. Follow State law to the letter and you can still end up in Federal Court as the Respondant in a lawsuit or Criminal case!

[square butte]

Bret, While we were still in MT , I called the NYSP and talked to a Sgt. who gave me the afore mentioned advise. Interesting that some one was willing to tell me that on the phone, but it might well have not held water on the highway. I do have a NH CCP and have thought about going the FL and UT route for added coverage - and perhaps added protection in the event of a move. Thanks very much for your comments. Also for your commitment to keeping people informed and engaged on legislative issues. Tom

[Boerrancher]

I can not, until the SCOTUS rules on the 2nd, support the Federal Gov forcing a state to do anything. As I said, I don't have to financially support that state in any way, any more no matter how badly I enjoy some of the products that come form that state. Let me put it to you this way... How would any of you like it if Congress decided that since California has same sex marriage, every state would have to recognize California's marriage certificate? I would almost bet the farm that most of you would throw a fit. There is no difference with the CCW permits until the Supreme Court makes it's ruling, and depending on how they rule, it may not matter anyway.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

[Bret4207]

I can not, until the SCOTUS rules on the 2nd, support the Federal Gov forcing a state to do anything. As I said, I don't have to financially support that state in any way, any more no matter how badly I enjoy some of the products that come form that state. Let me put it to you this way... How would any of you like it if Congress decided that since California has same sex marriage, every state would have to recognize California's marriage certificate? I would almost bet the farm that most of you would throw a fit. There is no difference with the CCW permits until the Supreme Court makes it's ruling, and depending on how they rule, it may not matter anyway.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe


Gee Joe, that's exactly what our Governor just DID!!!! The old Executive Order comes to the rescue again. Irritating? Yes. But a legal marrige license is a legal marrige license. Until we have a Constitutional Ammendment defining the legal term of "marrige" this is what we're stuck with. Once again we're stuck here wondering, "What next ?!!"

[Morgan Astorbilt]

It's the "Full Faith and Credit Law", and it works both ways. What if you couldn't drive in another state with your current driver's license? Legalizing same sex marriages is like allowing six year olds to drive. If your state did, all states would have to allow it. We've got to find a way to have more uniform marriage licensing rules, by definitely defining what "marriage" is, just like driving rules.
BTW, Why doesn't this law apply to CCW?
Morgan

[JIMinPHX]

Similar bills have been presented several times before. They have never gone anywhere. The big reason is because states like NJ & Cal don’t want to be strong armed into letting people there have guns. In the past, the number of states (& therefore the number of politicians) that wanted to prevent people with permits from other states from having guns in their state was pretty large. Now that so many states have reciprocity already, there are fewer & fewer states that would be affected by this sort of bill becoming law & resistance to it is weakening. Eventually, a law of this type will probably pass.

This bill has an obvious up side, but there is a problem buried deep down inside it. It strikes a blow against states rights & makes the already bloated Fed even stronger. Even with that caveat, I still would like to see it go through & I will give it my usual level of support that I always have. I’m really more concerned about the Heller case right now. That is the important issue at hand that needs to be watched vigilantly. Heller will likely set the tone for firearms laws & constitutional fidelity for the foreseeable future. This CCW bill is just icing on the cake.

[Bret4207]

Jim I think you're right overall and I can see both sides of the argument. Weighing them out I ahve to decide on being in favor of the Reciprocity Bill as it endorses the idea I now know, (thanks to those who supplied the phrase!) as "Full faith and Credit".

[mike in co]

The second amendment gives me the right to carry within all the federal boundaries. It is the states and towns that say I can't, plus all of the other gun control laws enacted by everyone and his uncle. Sorry, Mike, but that is the way I see the second as intended by the signers of that document. I will not sign up for any kind of unconstitutional CCW. ... felix


( actually, i agree with you. i just dont put it in public much.....i do not see the need for a ccw, i have the god given right/task to protect me, my family, my property..........i do not "need" any government permission to do so)

[AZ-Stew]

BTW, Bret, the (Laughing!) in my last post was good-natured, as a result of your choice of words and phrases, not at what you had to say.

It's always been my contention that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause already requires the other States to honor my CCW, since it's issued by the State of Arizona, not by the county. There's something in the FF&C clause that pertains to some such as "contracts between the State and its citizens", or something. That's one of the reasons our legislators set up our CCW law to be administered by the Department of Public Safety (our name for what others call the State Police), rather than the county sheriffs.

I agreee with you regarding passage through NY and MA. I'd dearly love to visit Boston to see some of the historical sites there, but will not until RTC reciprocity is passed. Those States, and others, such as Commiefornia, and their LEOs take the State gun laws to such extremes that I do my best to avoid traveling there. From personal experience I can tell you that the CHP can be absolute jerks about it. Fortunately, I wasn't on the receiving end of the officer's dim-witted antics, I just happened to be in a position to observe it first hand. And we've all seen the video of the old lady in New Orleans who was gang-tackled in her own home by "law enforcement officers" because she refused to be evacuated after Katrina. These Bozos conspicuously wore CHP patches on their shoulders. They were "enforcing the law" by carrying out unconstitutional orders from the New Orleans mayor, according to the way they had been trained and the culture of their police force. And they weren't even in their own State! They showed no respect for the laws of the State they were in, nor in the Constitutionality of their warrantless searches and property confiscation. The scariest thing about the whole Katrina mess as it relates to us is that the LEOs willingly went about the gun confiscation task without questioning its legality. When the LEOs become such mind-numbed robots that they can't distinguish betweeen legal and illegal orders, we're all in trouble.

At least the military trained us that we were not compelled to obey unlawful orders. It seems to me that many law enforcement agencies don't teach this or observe it in their cultures.

No, I wouldn't like to spend $thousands to defend myself after arrest should I be stopped and found to have an "illegal" gun while passing through a restrictive State, but at least I have the 86 GOPA to fall back on. No one ever said that such laws are an absolute shield against harrassment. Lawyers write laws to benefit lawyers. (Lawyers should be banned form serving in all legislative bodies, but that's another story.) I'd hate to contribute to ones' Mercedes payment, but as Josey Wales said, "Worms and buzzards gotta eat, too." At least in this country we have recourse through the court system and the ability to appeal poor decisions by lower courts. No one said it would be cost-free, though. I'm not going to roll over and accept a conviction when I know I'm within the law.

Regards,

Stew

[The Double D]

Stew- Don't try it in NY unless you're enroute to a sanctioned match in NY, or Mass even with a long gun. Heck, I won't carry in Mass even with my shield in my pocket! Not saying it's right, just the way it is. Thats part of the reason I'm in favor of this bill. We've had Investigators arrested in Pa while on duty in the past when they crossed the border to do an interview!

As for the harassment part- doesn't even begin to cover it. NY State law says if you were caught with a handgun in NY without a permit of under the narrow guide lines of the penal law the gun WILL be destroyed. The only way out is to get the DA or County Judge to issue an Order of Non-Destruction. Again,. not saying it's right, but thats the way it is. As for it all coming out in court- Do you really want to spend maybe 2 years and thousands of your own dollars hoping a Judge who may have an atni-gun agenda sees things your way?

Until SCOTUS makes a clear ruling we're stuck with this stuff. That's why we need to get active. Sitting on our hands moaning about the unfairness of it all does nothing to stop these laws from being passed and being used.

Stew is correct. There is a Federal exemption. GOPA86

Bret is correct, you are going have spend your own money and time to get the exemption.

I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer. The Federal Law allows me to carry a concealed weapon.

If TPR Bret makes contact with me in his work and the issue of me carrying a concealed weapon comes up how does he know I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer. My former agency refuses to provide me with any form of identification.

Because of privacy laws, TPR Bret is not going to be able make a simple phone call and ask my former agency about my status. They aren't going to tell him anything without a privacy release from me or court order.

Probably isn't going to matter since TPR Bret is responsible for NY law and not Federal law. TPR Bret has probably never had traiining Federal law or at least the the laws that covers these issues.

So what is TPR Brent to do?

Same thing he has to do everyday, take enforcement action, let the courts sort it out.

I am unaware of any state that has issued any laws acknowledging recognizing the provisions of GOPA86. Some states do recognize the right of a Federal Officer to carry firearms in performance of their duties. Many do not.

If the federal government passes a national CCW law it's up to the individual state to pass a law acknowledging the law.

I have worked in three states with Traffic law enforcement resposibilities. Each of these states had laws that directly or indirectly recognized other states drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. These reciprocity laws are based on the federal Uniform Traffic code. I enforced the state reciprocity law not the federal law.

Apply this same principals to national CCW Reprocity laws. The states have to make their own laws.

At best like the GOPA86 and the various Federal Retired LEO exemptions, a Federal CCW Recipority Act will only serve as what I seem to remember the Lawyers call an affirmative or positive defense.

If you get arrested for only CCW and there were no other violations you defense attorney would propose an affirmitive defense under the federal law.

Wouldn't apply if you commited other crimes at the same time.

[The Double D]

It is clear and concise, Bret! ......"not be infringed" tells me that the case laws are positively in error in that they are contrary to the constitution. It does not take a literary genius to see that. If I wrote a computer program with a leading conditional phrase with no direct branching criteria, and followed it with a non-conditional phrase, the program will always follow the non-conditional phrase. This is how you parse a sentence in ANY BODY'S language ... felix

Felix,

I agree with you about what the 2nd saying "shall not be infringed". But that little phrase also scares me. That says Joe Robber can take his sawed off shot gun to jail with him. It would be an infringement to take it a way from him.

SCOTUS is suppose to come out tomorrow...I believe that this little phrase is either going to be the pivot point of their decision or will be totally ignored. I just can't see how they can ignore it.

By my strict reading of the constitution and the historical record justifiying it, the 2nd more protects your right to possess a thermonuclear device more than it protects your right to possess a Perazzi Trap gun. A strict reading of the history says purpose of the 2nd was to provide the people a means to protect its self from the government and its standing Army and not for hunting or personal protection from crime.

I won't prevail.

[mike in co]

Felix,

I agree with you about what the 2nd saying "shall not be infringed". But that little phrase also scares me. That says Joe Robber can take his sawed off shot gun to jail with him. It would be an infringement to take it a way from him.

SCOTUS is suppose to come out tomorrow...I believe that this little phrase is either going to be the pivot point of their decision or will be totally ignored. I just can't see how they can ignore it.

By my strict reading of the constitution and the historical record justifiying it, the 2nd more protects your right to possess a thermonuclear device more than it protects your right to possess a Perazzi Trap gun. A strict reading of the history says purpose of the 2nd was to provide the people a means to protect its self from the government and its standing Army and not for hunting or personal protection from crime.

I won't prevail.


not so....mr robber is now a sub class citizen( a convicted criminal) that has had several "rights" changed....posession of a firearm is one that he just lost.

mike in co

[Bret4207]

This is what I mean by having to defer to case law. There are all sorts of "unknown/unused" laws, laws that weren't meant to apply that can, case law from one State that negates case law in another, contradictory Federal and State law..... the list is long. Until we get a real group of leaders in Washington AND the State Legislatures we're going to have to work around and within these confines. Just be cause the Constitution says something clearly doesn't mean the law works that way!

[The Double D]

not so....mr robber is now a sub class citizen( a convicted criminal) that has had several "rights" changed....posession of a firearm is one that he just lost.

mike in co

Sorry Mike, shall not be infringed! If you are strict constitutionalist, that is. Common sense says there must be some reasonable infringment.

I believe the SCOTUS has said in the past the personal rights can be temporarily suspended but must be returned upon rehabilitation.

[Wicky]

MtGun44, You never know what our politicians will do next. Our new Prime Minister is supposedly a shooter but I doubt he will change much especcially as he is with the Labour party who are notoriuosly anti gun. Some states like the Northern Territory where I live have better laws but anti handgun fever is running riot with our Pollies. I am not sure if you are aware but the civilian population is restricted to 10 shot magazines and no calibre larger than 38/9mm. Except if you shoot Single Action ar IHMSA or have a collectors licence.
It would be nice to see a bit of a relaxing of laws now it is proven that our so called buybacks didn't work but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.
Part of the trouble is the old Aussie "She'll be right" attitude. By the time we have worked out it won't be right we have been done over.
One can only live in hope and try pertitioning those pollies that half care.
Might have to move to the States!!

[MtGun44]

Wicky,

If it comes to that, I know you'd be welcomed. Kansas small towns are offering
FREE land to anyone that will move there and build a house or business. I am
not kidding. IIRC, Alice Springs is a small town, but I may be wrong. You might
like small town KS. Of course, I live in a suburb of Kansas City which straddles
the KS-Missouri state line, with about 1 million in the overall metro area.

Check this out for fre land in small town Kansas:

http://www.kansasfreeland.com/

We just got the law changed to permit machine guns, short barreled rifles and
shotguns and suppressors, too. Really expensive items due to limited supplies,
but at least they are legal now.

Good luck with your guns. Sounds like my favorites, .44 revolvers and .45 autos
are not allowed. Too bad.

I carry a .45 Lightwt Commander stainless every day. I'd really miss it. :(


Bill

[JIMinPHX]

In plain speak- I have never heard anyone in the NYSP ever speak of any legal way to transit NYS with handguns.

Back in 89, I spent a few hours in handcuffs on the side of I-95 in Connecticut because the cop at the speed trap was unfamiliar with the GOPA. He was ready to haul me off for illegal possession. The fact that I had my FFL with me was the only reason that he took my claims serious enough to even bother calling a desk sergeant, who was equally uninformed. The fact that I had my law book from the BATF with me with the transport law page earmarked that had little effect on him. Eventually an assistant DA looked up the law, read it to him & explained what it said. The cop didn’t understand the word “notwithstanding”. It took them several hours to figure out that I was doing nothing wrong. My wrists hurt for about a week after that, but at least I got to leave without a criminal arrest record having been started for me.

This little tidbit is a handy reference to keep around when in the northeast -

http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf

[mike in co]

Sorry Mike, shall not be infringed! If you are strict constitutionalist, that is. Common sense says there must be some reasonable infringment.

I believe the SCOTUS has said in the past the personal rights can be temporarily suspended but must be returned upon rehabilitation.

even strict only applies to citizens.....once a convicted criminal you are no longer a citizen with normal rights......go back and do some more reading.

if you think there were not exceptions when written , you are wrong. slaves were property, indentured servants had no rights till released form servitude, women...ouch and criminals......all sub class citizens.

and it would appear you have answered aqnd agreed with me:
"I believe the SCOTUS has said in the past the personal rights can be temporarily suspended but must be returned upon rehabilitation"....mr robber cannot be rehabilitaty if still in jail.....

mike in co

[Morgan Astorbilt]

According to Fox News, SCOTUS is adjourning for the summer, and will give their ruling on the 2nd. amendment case this morning at 10:00. Based upon their recent rulings, including the one on the child rape case, I'm pretty nervous about the outcome!!!
Morgan

[The Double D]

just in It is an individual Right...