Like I said, I don’t think congress can mandate that everyone carry. What I think they can do is mandate that everyone must have that choice (felons and other prohibited persons, sensitive places, etc. notwithstanding). They would essentially preempting or occupying all or some of the space with regard to permitting concealed weapons.
Yes it’s definitely broader than I would want. I’m not sure it’s broader than current law provides. However, my preference would be that congress simply say that this law is constitutional because the 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would be on firmer grounds and then the court can deal with that issue head on.
I don’t think the answer is certain. I think if the carrying of concealed weapons implicates the items mentioned in Lopez, then perhaps they can. The bill attempts to address this by only addressing those firearms that have moved through interstate commerce. I’m not sure that window dressing is enough, but by then it’d need to work its way through the courts.
Well, congress can legislate what types of guns are legal. They can legislate on the types of persons that can own and possess them - is it that much of a stretch to expand that to where those people can bring them?
The courts have ruled on where people can possess them - certainly the courts aren’t creating that law but interpreting the law so the law is there. I just think it’s in the 2nd amendment - but if it takes arguing commerce to get there then you have to play the cards you’re dealt. I’d prefer a reduction of the commerce clause powers, but I’d sacrifice that willingly for this law.
Oh yes, I think it is a huge difference. I’m struggling to think of any limitation on Federal powers if legislation like this is permissible. We can have Federal laws on jaywalking, because cars are part of interstate commerce.
I haven’t said it directly, but I’m strongly inclined to think that supporters of this bill are putting their support of guns far before any other principle. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone argued that “promote the general welfare” or some random line in the Declaration of Independence was sufficient authority for Congress to make this law.
Congress legislates the who, the what, and sometimes the why. I don’t see it all that different than the where. Can you walk me through the outlines on why you think it’s a huge difference?
I wouldn’t go that far myself. But yes, I am putting gun rights above other principles in that I’m willing to use grey areas as a means towards an ends. Keep in mind I do not believe this will pass in it’s current form.
But a lot of avenues could be used to justify reciprocity beyond commerce clause. 2nd amendment is the first choice. Equal protection is possible. Could attach it as a condition of some kind of funding. Could offer a federal license…lots of fanciful ways to skin this cat. But HR 38 is what is on the table.
Did you see the link? That was a real event, in Texas. A survivor was interviewed, a lady. She said she has a gun, and is trained and practices. She said the crazy shooter stalked around the building, picking targets and executing them. She said she was hiding under a table, and he was standing not ten feet away, with his back to her. She said if she had her gun in her purse, she could have easily wasted him, saving many lives.
They legislate on the who, what, when, where and so on for things that are within the enumerated and implied powers. Those powers don’t include the what, who, and when for whatever strikes their fancy.
If this were a question of legislating concealed carry in national parks, military bases, Washington DC, and other places in Federal jurisdiction, there’s no debate. Of course Congress can do that.
But saying that Congress can make laws not only on matters that directly relate to interstate commerce, but also to subsume the police power exercised by states for any tenuous connection to an item that maybe once had traveled across a border? There’s literally no limits on congressional power to take precedence over all state laws, because for any state law we can find some flimsy link to interstate commerce.
You keep saying you’re opposed to that, but generally fine if that argument helps you get what you want. How you don’t see how adopting that principle as a matter of convenience can lead to the principle backfiring on you is a mystery.
Maybe the next time we have a unified government under Dems (could come as soon as 2020!) they can pass a law prohibiting constitutional carry in all states or shall-issue CCW policies in all states. Why not? You’re arguing today that’s within the power of the Federal government.
I totally disagree. I think those are all absurd suggestions, far more fanciful than this debate over the commerce clause and FFC.
Yes - I see the hazard. My ultimate preference would be for SCOTUS to rule on carry and make the country shall issue. Could this convenience be worth the risk - I think maybe so. If it comes to pass I won’t be sad.
But I do think there is a difference between restricting something and forcing the permissiveness of a thing. If not in law but in perception. Whether that leads to some backfire petard hoisting in the future, I don’t know. But I think the federal government has gained the power to force people to buy whatever product they want already via the ACA.
To me, it is necessary that all states recognize other state’s CCW permits. That’s a tool, but it’s a tool to get carry in the 9 states that don’t generally allow it. If congress simply preempted those state’s carry schemes and adopted nationwide carry based on the 2nd amendment, I think that would pass constitutional muster. Something like, pursuant to the 2nd amendment, congress, and the states through incorporation shall not infringe on the rights of people to bear arms. Systems to provide licenses shall conform with XYZ. Yes, a bit fanciful given our current landscape, but it’s nice to dream.
Pelosi said it because she is an idiot who has little touch with reality. All you have to do is read her ravings over the last ten years of so (if you can stomach them) to see that she ain’t all that tightly wrapped.
This might surprise you, but not all criminals are crack shots. Lots of things could happen: he could miss, he could hit you, but not cause a critical location, his gun could misfire, etc.
Personally, if I felt confident that he’d just take my money and leave me unharmed, I’d give him my wallet. If I was under the impression that he might harm me or my family, I would do the best I could to eliminate the threat.
So there was once when existing law saved a racist cop the trouble of planting drugs on a random black motorist who he’d pulled over for making an unsafe lane change.
Clearly the police and prosecutors were on their way to a miscarriage of justice here before Christie pardoned her. But the broad pattern that this case fits into is that of American law enforcement coming down much more heavily on blacks than whites. Many laws are applied much more harshly to blacks as part of this long-standing program of unequal enforcement of the laws.
This one instance of the law coming down harder on blacks gives you heartburn for obvious reasons. You don’t pass sweeping laws because of one troublesome case. The appropriate response is a one-case remedy (like a gubernatorial pardon, as happened here).
Yesterday, a cop was acquitted of any crime despite shooting a black man to death who was on the ground with his hands in the air. That’s one case, but it’s also one case out of a nationwide pattern of such cases. Daniel Shaver didn’t get the opportunity to spend three years in prison for being in that cop’s way; he’s dead forever. But those conservatives who were rallying to Shaneen Allen’s cause, where were they in cases like Daniel Shaver’s?
As I’ve mentioned, there’s a public policy exception to the clause. If something is legal is state A, it doesn’t necessarily override laws in state B. The example I’ve used in this thread is that some states issue driver licenses to 15 year olds, but if a state requires that drivers be at least 16, that state is not compelled to allow 15 year old drivers simply because a different state has a different law.
This isn’t the only case of our patchwork of CCW reciprocity laws getting non-violent people in trouble. Like I said, “here is one example”. There are others, but if you’re just going to handwave them away like this and change the subject to something unrelated to the thread topic, I’m not sure I feel like taking the time to dig up the details of additional cases.
What I mean is that us gun-control types want stricter gun laws because thousands of people get killed by guns every year. I’m kinda curious about the carnage that’s happened that the House bill would have prevented if it had become law years or decades ago. All you’ve got is zero deaths, and one unjust imprisonment where the guns really seemed to be a side-issue. Maybe you’ve got some more unjust imprisonments. Well then.
Why did they have to pass a law to restate the public policy exception? Oh yeah that’s right because the public policy exception may not apply to things like constitutional rights like the right to marry and the right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, it includes this clause:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
Its called the commerce clause and I can’t think of a topic area in which the federal government cannot legislate. Can you name one?
I think it probably exists. I don’t think there is a real threat of constitutional challenge.
No, its intended to point out that people aren’t really concerned about the loose standards. I would suggest that if the gun control folks got together and proposed a federal concealed carry license with Texas standards (remember, those are the guys who have lower rates of criminality than police officers), they could get past this issue. But they have a one way ratchet and then get all huffy about how gun rights activists have a one way ratchet to their proposals.
There is nothing principled here. The gun rights side wants to get rid of the byzantine web of laws governing concealed carry and the gun control side like things to be af complicated as possible.