Federal concealed carry
Alphie doesn’t like the idea and says the NRA is compromising rights again:
Yet in order to bear arms I must take a class, stand in line for hours in order to talk to deal with frustrated civil servants, pay an outrageous fee, undergo an invasive background check and (the final indignity) get fingerprinted like a criminal so my prints can be stored in files in both Nashville and Washington.
He also notes Andy Barniskis says:
I expect that what will be dictated by congress in the future–if not immediately–will include fingerprinting, mug shots, mandatory training, and high administrative costs. And, once the principle of federally dictated standards is established, increasingly restrictive standards could become a backdoor way for carry permits to be de facto prohibited by federal regulation, without congressional action. …
We will be better off continuing to fight reciprocity issues at home, on a state-by-state basis, never forgetting that licensing a right converts that right to a privilege. Ultimately, we should not lose sight of our ideal, that armed self defense is a genuine constitutional right, and genuine rights should not be subject to the prior constraint of licensing.
I am as gun nut as they get. But here’s where I often disagree with other gunnies. The notion that one can merely carry arms (those that disagree with me say the Second Amendment does say bear) willy-nilly is not generally supported by, well, anything other than the word bear in the second amendment, which has other connotations. I think the states can regulate the wearing of arms. The Tennessee constitution, for example, says:
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
At the founding, concealed weapons were commonly viewed as the tools of assassins and cowards. And they were scorned. Nowadays, it’s just good fasion sense to go concealed. So, folks were understandably not keen on concealed weapons.
But I do agree that federal carry permit regulation is bad joo-joo.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I don’t understand their argument at all. My take on the right to bear arms (mine personally, that is, not one endorsed by any court that I’m aware of) is that every state must allow either open or concealed carry, or both. IOW, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee your right to bear arms in any particular manner, but does guarantee your right to do so somehow. But if the Second Amendment really does guarantee a right to carry concealed, why shouldn’t the federal government be enforcing that right any way that it can? And Andy Barinskis’s argument is a complete non sequitur. It’s a free country, so he can “expect” anything he wants, but where is the evidence that a law requiring states to honor each other’s permits if criteria A, B and C are met will magically morph into a “de facto” prohibition on anything?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:05 am
SayUncle,
I have been in favor a national CCW, but you make a good point re: the regulations, some which would probably be legislatively or even arbitrarily imposed by the ATF or some other unelected types.
Reconsidering it, may be better left to “the several States” like our state which has recognized all other state gun permits. Of course, having to get a permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional and morally repugnant. I have just written the two candidates for my state rep, both of whom claim to be strong 2nd Amendment supporters, an article from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership which clearly explains the right vs. privilege thing about CCW laws. I pointed out that Vermont and now, Alaska, have the right to carry with no permit–to which Tennessee should go ini accordance with the wording of the 2nd Amendment and Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution’s Declaration of RIGHTS which you cited.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Ron W., what is your objection to federal regulations on CCW? Bear in mind we’re talking about regulations determining when State A is required to recognize a permit issued by State B. We’re not talking about regulations imposed on either state directly. States would still be free to ignore the federal standard if they wish; they just wouldn’t be able to require other states to honor them.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:12 am
For a comparision, would it be acceptable if the United States government allowed, say, the right to freedom of religion, but only if you worshipped at home or online, and prohibited unsanctioned IRL meetings? How about if you could have freedom of speech, but only by pen, not by pencil or computer? How about if the right to legal representation : would limiting those choices in any way be acceptable? Perhaps the right to protection from unreasonable searches should apply only if you had a license and kept whatever items completely concealed at home?
Do you think knife carry should require a permit? How about martial arts training?
From a more pragmatist, and less absolutist, viewpoint, do you honestly think that licensing will be immune to the slippery slope, unlike every other gun control law? Do you think the Federal government won’t require access to license records, and that the folks at the BATFE won’t be proud to use the for fishing expeditions, just as they use the 4473 forms?
[quote]But if the Second Amendment really does guarantee a right to carry concealed, why shouldn’t the federal government be enforcing that right any way that it can?[/quote]
Yes, just like the twenty thousand laws ‘protecting’ freedom of speech from governmental action, like the requirement to present a few hundred dollars, fingerprints, and before organizing any assembly. Wait…
But would you really trust a federal government that still hasn’t gotten rid of the BATFE or even fired Mr. Lon Horiuchi by now? The federal government’s job is to increase their own power, and recognizing human rights gets in the way of that (paraphrased from the original “create laws”).
In theory, it’s the job of the judicial branch to protect the rights of citizens… but how long ago was Miller?
[quote]what is your objection to federal regulations on CCW?[/quote]
Because I think Charles Schumer already has too much ability to regulate my rights as is?
[quote]States would still be free to ignore the federal standard if they wish; they just wouldn’t be able to require other states to honor them.[/quote]
After the 55 MPH speed limit, after the increase to the drinking age, do you honestly believe that?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Xrlq,
I would be in favor of a federal law simply pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 mandating that a gun permits from any one state should be recognized by the other states–and also pursuant to the 14th Amendment which prohibits states from denying rights. I was re-thinking a national CCW law in which the federal gov’t would be doing the regulating, restricting, etc. and in which one would have to get a federal permit.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Gattsuru:
No, but the First and Second Amendments aren’t worded the same way, are they? The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging free speech, press, etc., or from passing laws that merely respect an establishment of religion. By contrast, laws impacting the right to keep and bear arms do not offend the Second Amendment unless they infringe it. Big difference.
Slippery slope isn’t always a bad argument, but it usually is. Contrary to the usual conspiracy mongering, the slope doesn’t consistently slip in one direction. The original version of the Gun Control Act was more onerous than the current one, for example, and I’m not aware of a single state which has gone from shall-issue to may- or no-issue, while I can give plenty of examples of states that have “slipped” in the pro-gun direction, either by moving into the shall-issue column over the past 20 years, or by further relaxing a shall-issue law that was already on the books.
Bzzzt, wrong answer. We’re not talking about federal regulations limiting your right to carry. We’re talking about federal regulations which, if enacted, would limit your own state’s power to limit your right to carry. The only danger the likes of Charles Schumer pose to such legislation is that they may prevent it from passing in the first place – or perhaps water it down to the point where it won’t do all that much good.
The long-defunct 55 mph is another example of how slippery slopes don’t always slip in the same direction. Besides, both it and the drinking age resulted from Congressional appropriations tied to requiring states to pass restrictive laws. The proposal discussing is not a law that would do anything of the kind. It makes no sense to argue against Federal Bill A on the basis that Federal Bill B would be a bad idea.
Ron W., I agree that a federal permiting system is more potentially problematic than the mutual recognition law being discussed now. However, there’s no reason, in theory at least, why the federal government couldn’t issue a national CCW permit, which all states must recognize as a matter of federal law, while also allowing the states to retain alternative permit systems of their own, which other states may honor or not honor as they see fit.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Whereas; Vermont has had a “no permit required” concealed carry policy for years,
Whereas; Vermont carry has since been adopted by the State of Alaska,
Whereas; The Second Amendment has no qualifiers and represents the Supreme Law of the Land and cannot be abridged by the States,
Whereas; Vermont shares a long border with the People’s Republic of New York, and though gun laws between the two states are vast, Vermont has by far the lower crime rate, I proclaim that the good American People have proven the wisdom of the Second Amendment and call upon Congreff for its full enforcement in all the fifty States. Therefore all concealed carry laws should be repealed post haste.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Abridge means to cut off, deprive, or diminish. Infringe means to encroach upon or transgress. To take the abstract of violence, I can do a lot to you without cutting off or depriving anything, and make threatining motions without diminishing you. On the other hand, my first kick would well encroach upon you, and the first act with a hint of violence would be a transgression.
Stop thinking small picture. A hundred years ago, do you honestly think we were lower on the slope to weapon criminalization than we are right now? Do you think any events favoring gun owners came without the expenditure of political currency?
Hell, if you don’t think we’re on a slippery slope, you are in the minority. The entire assault weapon ban held no purpose but to further tilt the slope. Still don’t believe me? Name a single state that went from a gun-friendly viewpoint to gun confiscation without stopping for breaks at registration and licensing first?
We’re not talking about federal regulations limiting your right to carry. We’re talking about federal regulations which, if enacted, would limit your own state’s power to limit your right to carry. The only danger the likes of Charles Schumer pose to such legislation is that they may prevent it from passing in the first place – or perhaps water it down to the point where it won’t do all that much good.
And the Firearms Owners Protection Act was originally just supposed to limit the BATFE from being asshats. Instead it just meant they could only be asshats once every year, and New York still arrests you for following ‘safe passage’ regulations.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Aw jeeze…. How hard does this really have to be???
This may be overly simplistic, but
1. The Constitution says what government can and cannot do.
2. The 14th amendment made the rights of the citizenry apply equally regardless of the state or territory in which the citizen resides.
3. The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not a qualification, but a justification.
And from a practical perspective
1. The military is armed,
2. The law enforcement community is armed,
3. Anyone who can afford security can be armed, and
4. The criminal element is armed.
We are the only ones having our rights infringed.