Federal Overreach and the National Concealed Carry Law

americanthinker.com ^ | 3/7/2018 | Sam Bocetta

[rktman]

;-) I thought it was “librarians” for a second there.

[Beagle8U]

Them too. Bunch of liberals.

[MileHi]

And should you have the right to do that in the White House or the Capitol?

Of course I said no such thing. But I have to get there safely first.

You can get a drivers license, with restrictions, at age 14. That license is not recognized as valid in Missouri or Illinois or Colorado.

Nor should it be. That is more akin to a learners permit than a license. Can that 14 year old drive alone to a city on the other side of Kansas?

[AndyJackson]

WTF are you talking about? What is the exact language of the 2nd amendment?

[rktman]

I’m thinkin’ the 2nd doesn’t “create” a right. It was supposed to guarantee that NO ONE could mess with your right to keep and bear. If you see it as “creating”, okay.

[US_MilitaryRules]

Does every state have different laws for the first amendment?

[Ancesthntr]

“Under Concealed Carry Reciprocity, state gun laws would be rendered null and void, as anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state would be able to travel across state lines while armed.”

---

The rights guaranteed (not granted, mind you, GUARANTEED) by the Constitution and any of its amendments are meaningless if they don’t apply EVERYWHERE in the United States. That’s what these libertarians don’t understand. Self-rule at the local level is just fine in concept...but what would they say if some state (let’s use California as an example) passed a law that restricted freedom of speech or assembly for those who could not obtain the approval of a state commission on derogatory speech (which is anything that doesn’t agree with the Leftist dogma of that week)? They’d scream like stuck pigs (and rightly so, I might add). So, why can’t they be logically consistent and do the same for the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?

[1Old Pro]

There are a lot of folks who (by my reading) believe that the second amendment IS the CCW authorization. Unledss we've recently (past 50 years) redefined INFRINGED.

Someone with standing needs to test this in the courts.

[rktman]

LOL! How much money do you have?

[Ancesthntr]

“There is no question “National Reciprocity” violates the 10th AMendment.”

---

No, actually you are dead wrong.

The 2nd Amendment - which each state in existence at that time ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and which every state admitted since then ratified by implication - states: “...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Note that - unlike the 1st Amendment - it does NOT say, “Congress shall make no law....” It is a blanket restriction that protects the RKBA from infringement. Knowing that the Founders understood English, and that in the immediately prior Amendment they SPECIFICALLY constrained Congress - but did not restrict JUST Congress in the 2nd Amendment - it is obvious that the 2nd was intended from Day One to apply to ALL governments, everywhere in the United States. Oh, and just in case there was any doubt, the 14th Amendment fixed that (as backed up by the “McDonald” case out of Chicago, as related to firearms).

So...you are wrong: National Reciprocity legislation not only DOESN’T violate the 10th Amendment, it reinforces the 2nd Amendment.

[Ancesthntr]

“I’m thinkin’ the 2nd doesn’t “create” a right. It was supposed to guarantee that NO ONE could mess with your right to keep and bear. If you see it as “creating”, okay.”

---

rktman is correct. The RKBA pre-dated the Constitution. That document ONLY created the government, and set the parameters for its structure and operations (including, especially with the Bill of Rights, restrictions on its power). If the 2nd was repealed tomorrow, the RKBA would still exist - we humans have the right to defend our lives, our families, our communities and our liberties just because we are human, NOT because some ancient piece of parchment with a few squiggly lines on it says so.

It is much more than semantics, by the way - it is about one’s entire outlook on the nature of our government. Government was set up to protect our rights, our liberties. You might find some of these words to be familiar (and, if not, then put them into a Google search and learn):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

[2harddrive]

By the way, from now on I am referring to semi-auto firearms, like a typical rifle before OR after a Bumpfire stock is installed, as a single-shot rifle, since one single trigger pull = one single shot. FULL autos would be multi-shot. Beat’em at their word games!

[Stanwood_Dave]

Excellent post! Ditto's from me.

[wastoute]

I don’t think you are hearing me. I agree with you but I think it is easier to get “something wrong” in order to put everything right.

[JimRed]

For libertarians, this bill is not a matter of our Second Amendment right; rather, it's a matter of federal overreach. Under Concealed Carry Reciprocity, state gun laws would be rendered null and void, as anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state would be able to travel across state lines while armed.

ANY requirement by federal, state or local law for ANY licensing or permit is a clear infringement upon the rights recognized in the second amendment.

[JimRed]

“....the 2nd Amendment creates a right....” Uh, what?

WADR, it recognizes a preexisting right.

[Hugin]

“If the Federal Government can pass a law saying that CCW permits must be honored in all states then what is to stop them from saying that those CCW permits must have 40 hours of training? Or can only be issued to those above a certain age? Or other requirement”

The former prevents states from infringing on a constitutional right. Your latter examples infringe on it. That’s the difference. In truth the point should be moot as nobody should need a permit to exercise their right to self defense.

[Svartalfiar]

The 14th Amendment applies applies the federal BOR to the states so the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is constitutional. Case closed.

That's really a poor argument. The Second Amendment doesn't need the Fourteenth to apply. The 2nd doesn't apply to the states or the FedGov, it applies to the people. It says nothing about 'Congress shall not' or anything similar, it says 'the right of the people shall not be infringed.'