TexasCHLforum.com

Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment
-- Action needed right away!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has filed a pro-gun amendment to HR 980,
and it
could be voted on as early as tomorrow!

This amendment would protect the right of citizens to carry concealed
weapons (outside of their home state) in states that allow concealed
carry.

Sen. Vitter explains that his amendment does not violate the rights of
states as it "does NOT establish national standards for concealed
carry, nor
does it provide for a national carry permit."

In other words, the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws
concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be
carried
shall be followed. "My amendment will not federalize concealed carry
permits but simply requires concealed carry permits to be recognized
in
other states that allow concealed carry permits," Vitter said.

This is a real reciprocity provision which grants citizens the
"full faith
and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the
Constitution.
Section 1 of this article says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records, and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Vitter says that this constitutional provision authorizes the Congress
to
pass legislation forcing each state to recognize the "public
Acts" of other
states. So if states are not willing to recognize another state's
laws,
Congress has the authority to pass laws to require recognition of
those
measures.

It's just like with driver's licenses. If certain states refused to
honor
the driver's licenses of citizens in other states, Congress could pass
legislation (under Article IV) to require every state to honor all
licenses.


ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote for the Vitter amendment to
HR
980 to protect the right to carry concealed firearms outside of your
home
state.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-
written
e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at 202-224-3121
or
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

I'd like to hear what Chas or someone else with a law background thinks of this. While it may be a good thing, to me it sounds like the government is putting it's fingers into a pot that it does not belong.

This has been posted on TFL also. I agree with lot of the responses there that the best if the Gov. stays out of it completly. It can start going down the slope easily.

https://www.thefiringline.com/forums/sh ... p?t=294412

I'm happy with what we currently have and if more states come forward with more pro-gun CCW laws and we gain more territory I'll be happy. Trying to force states doing that might cause a lot of problems which eventually will be delegated to the fed. gov. and they will try to regulate it.

I say leave the Feds out. Forcing a state to recognize a CHL will do nothing because they will put everything off limits anyway if they don't want CC in their state. This is nothing more than our side using liberal, big government tactics to help us along. I do not except that it is necessary. All it will do is give a future socialists government an "in" to regulate and/or destroy CC in one move. They will twist words and stir the weak minded to support their "regulation" of CC if they get any chance to do so.

An example for doubters is that when FDR was selling Socialists Security he and all on his side swore the SSN would never be used as a national ID number. It was somewhere around immediately that the Congress passed ways to use it as just that. So, good intentions aside, I don't trust the Feds to stay out of what is the business of the people of each state. If they don't want my CHL then they don't want my money. I freely except the will of the people of any state to make that decision for themselves.

I have to agree, the fed needs to mind there own business, let the states decide with whom they want to be reciprocal.

The think I like about it is that it appears to force states with extremely restrictive concealed carry laws, like California and New York, to recognize out-of-state permits.

Steve

I equate it with driver's licenses; each state gives full faith and credit to the other state's driver's licenses (the driver just has to follow the traffic laws in the state where he/she is then driving). The CHL should be the same, you would have to follow the CHL laws in the state where you are. DMG.

I like the idea of places like NY, Chicago and Commiefornia being forced to allow out-of-state visitors to pack their heat while their own subjects are defenseless. I can just see the BGs telling each other "don't mess with the tourists, you're liable to get shot!"

This shouldn't require a law to be passed, bt having said that, I am in favor of the law because it would force the issue once again.

I can envision a cascade of events where nationwide Vermont Style carry might result from just such legislation.

popnfresh wrote:I have to agree, the fed needs to mind there own business, let the states decide with whom they want to be reciprocal.

While I'm very much a Jeffersonian anti-federalist myself, the fact of the matter is that this actually IS the fed's business...at least if you put any stock in Section 1, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

DParker wrote:

popnfresh wrote:I have to agree, the fed needs to mind there own business, let the states decide with whom they want to be reciprocal.

While I'm very much a Jeffersonian anti-federalist myself, the fact of the matter is that this actually IS the fed's business...at least if you put any stock in Section 1, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

This is true - if one takes the view that the states are restricting a constitutional right (bear arms) then they should step in. Gonna be a tough fight though.

Penn wrote:

DParker wrote:While I'm very much a Jeffersonian anti-federalist myself, the fact of the matter is that this actually IS the fed's business...at least if you put any stock in Section 1, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

This is true - if one takes the view that the states are restricting a constitutional right (bear arms) then they should step in.

It's true whether the states are restricting a constitutional right or not. You have no constitutional right to drive a car on public roads, but if a state suddenly decided to stop recognizing out-of-state driving licenses as valid then the fed would be well within its constitutional powers to intervene under the "Full faith and credit" clause.

Gonna be a tough fight though.

That much we can agree on.

DParker wrote:While I'm very much a Jeffersonian anti-federalist myself, the fact of the matter is that this actually IS the fed's business...at least if you put any stock in Section 1, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

If we're putting stock in the Constitution, then this whole debate is moot: there would be no such thing as a "license" or "permit" for carrying a handgun.

KBCraig wrote:If we're putting stock in the Constitution, then this whole debate is moot: there would be no such thing as a "license" or "permit" for carrying a handgun.

If that were the debate then you might be correct. But the issue was really framed as one of states' rights vs. Fed authority.

DParker wrote:

KBCraig wrote:If we're putting stock in the Constitution, then this whole debate is moot: there would be no such thing as a "license" or "permit" for carrying a handgun.

If that were the debate then you might be correct. But the issue was really framed as one of states' rights vs. Fed authority.

OK, well, the Feds are trying to get the States to pay attention to a document the states do NOT have the right to ignore. Wherever the COTUS establishes a minimum standard, neither the Fed nor the States is allowed to enforce a lesser one, and wherever the COTUS outlaws a restriction or specifies the limit of a type of restriction, the States cannot impose one.

The 2A is thus not a States' Rights issue, or if it is argued as a States' Rights issue, they don't have the right claimed; every American citizen, born or naturalized, is subject to and benefits from the provisions of the Constitution, and the States are not given the right or power to contradict that. The Fourteenth Amendment enforces that supremacy of Constitutional law in its first two sentences:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...

We are Americans first, and Texans (or New Yorkers or Tennesseeans or Californians) second. The 14A overrides Cruikshank and Presser, which did specifically state that the Second Amendment applied only to the Feds, and was the basis for the decision in Duncan v Louisiana, a lesser-known case that incorporated the Sixth Amendment to the States, but in its ruling quoted the author of the Fourteenth Amendment who said ALL of the first eight Amendments were "privileges and immunities" as mentioned in A4, S2 of COTUS and protected against State incursion with the 14A.

Unfortunately, the Slaughterhouse Cases pretty much read that interpretation out of existence, by stating that the original Article Four "Privileges and Immunities Clause" (which goesn't grant anything specific) was what applied to the States, while the 14A applied only to the U.S. Government. (I don't see how 9 learned men could come to that conclusion; it's very straightforward to me and I'm by no means a law student). Thus, BoR Amendments have been incorporated one at a time using the Due Process clause to protect a liberty.