Are you using this as a free pass when your side does it, or would you rather your side didn’t do it as much?
This is like the 2nd amendment except more so. Setting aside the Constitution, I can see the argument for each state deciding how easy (or virtually impossible, here in NJ) is is to get a concealed weapon permit. But the full faith and credit clause really does make it pretty clearly unconstitutional IMO. Like I can see (don’t necessarily wholly agree with) pro-gun control feeling that’s pretty obviously at odds with the 2nd, but here there’s less ambiguity of wording.
Sure, pro gun control states could adapt by placing new restrictions on the use of permits, ‘OK your out of state permit is as valid as an in state one, but here are the new places and situations where the use of either is restricted’. That doesn’t change the basic point. Likewise it’s valid to point out that a large element of both the left and right switch sides on ‘states rights’ depending which side of the bread is buttered. Politics is a breeding ground for hypocrisy, who knew? But still hard for me to see how you can interpret “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” as meaning ‘except when we have a good reason’ which is pretty much the argument for the current system.
That’s a very good question that I’m not sure I can provide a good answer to.
I think the system of government we balance the text of the commerce clause with a sense of the practical realities and limitations of such a broad area. So, for example, I think it is perfectly fine to regulate transactions involving a broad expanse of goods and services without having to micromanage whether one particular good was purely the work of intrastate commerce.
Like, if someone grows apples in their backyard and uses a dangerous pesticide, I’m totally fine with the Federal government getting on their case for two reasons: the pesticide is very likely from out of state, and we have so many apples crossing state lines that whether one particular apple never crossed a border is an impractical basis for laws.
I also don’t buy that just because we can imagine tenuous links to interstate commerce that we should apply that label to every imaginable activity, otherwise the term is useless. I mentioned traveling across state lines as not being a definitive act of interstate commerce by itself. A trucking company moving across state lines, of course; but a family popping in to Maryland for reasons not known or explained? I don’t think that people simply moving from state to state as a matter of course isn’t necessarily a hook for Congress to regulate whatever they may have on their person at the time.
And in this case, I think the difference is important. I see no problem with the regulation of guns themselves as items of interstate commerce. But the heart of the law isn’t about regulation of guns – it is regulation of state permits that happen to pertain to guns. That’s too tenuous a link, IMHO.
I agree wholeheartedly. But that argument’s ship sailed out the barn door in the 1930s. All the feds have to do is point to some nexus between the activity and commerce and then it can be regulated.
For example, maybe people who feel secure in legally carrying concealed weapons in their home state refuse to travel or vacation in California, New Jersey, or New York because they feel unsafe. Such a failure to travel or vacation harms interstate commerce because those people don’t eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, or buy souvenirs.
If you think that is too thin of a connection, keep in mind that was the purported interstate commerce hook that saved the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I would support a much more limited federal presence in everyday life. General crimefighting should be a state issue. I think concealed carry should be a state issue (provided that the State allows some reasonable way to carry handguns for self protection per Heller). But that is not what we have. I would support adding a provision to the bill that it is self-repealed if the Supreme Court adopts its pre-New Deal Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
But I don’t think it is fair for the left to want the federal government in almost everything and then claim State’s Rights when it comes to this bill only.
As I understand it, San Francisco bans the possession of hollow point ammunition, which would catch any CCW carrier in their anti-gun net.
I wish neither side would do it. Moderates like me get ripped apart.
You realize that a bedrock case of the civil rights movement had to do with allowing black families to go on family trips across the country with the convenience of being able to stay in motels and eat in roadside diners, right? It was a commerce clause case.
So do you think the federal government can say that all guns that are sold across state lines can be carried concealed as long as the person is not a prohibited person?
And the right does the same thing. States rights when it comes to things like abortion and segregation/slavery but commerce clause when it comes to gun rights, drug laws and immigration law.
That isn’t quite true. When the gun free school zones act was first challenged in court, the Government made the argument that the safety and education of children has a nexus to interstate commerce. That line of argument was rejected by the courts as being too tenuous, and they essentially urged Congress to come up with a more compelling nexus.
So just because the deference to Congress on the commerce clause is broad, does not mean it is unlimited.
Sounds like the argument the Government made on the gun free school zones… which was rejected.
Except that the part of the Civil Rights Act you’re referring to actually pertained to actual economic activity. Whether a person is allowed or prohibited to stay in Hotel A or Restaurant B is a question that actually involves commerce, as a direct and factual matter. If a Federal law stated that guns may not be prohibited in any hotel or restaurant, I would say, “Okay, that’s a weird law, but it actually has something to do with commerce, so I can’t object to it on those grounds.”
But the reciprocity of a government issued permit has only the most fragile link to interstate commerce. I don’t buy that recognition of permits is an interstate commerce issue, just because permit holders might in some circumstances maybe buy a souvenir while coincidentally happening to have that permit, which has nothing to do with commerce itself, on their person. Again: this is the difference between broad and unlimited, IMHO.
You are perfectly free to surrender your opinion to the current interpretation of the law… but in your heart, you know I’m right. 
It’s getting pretty obnoxious to hear this lament thrown at me time and time again, when I’ve said many times in this thread that I think the courts were right in striking down a perfectly nice liberal law, the gun free school zone act.
If we want to talk about consistency, look at all the posters in this thread who have argued, “I disagree with a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but I’m willing to agree with it so long as it involves my guns!”
See above. Because staying in motels and eating at diners IS COMMERCE. I do not agree that simple movement across state lines is necessarily an act of commerce, nor do I believe whether one state gives standing to another state’s permit is an act of commerce either.
As I said before, and I’m happy to repeat this as many times as needed, I think if the Federal government wanted to establish a Federal permit on carrying guns that have been involved in interstate commerce across state lines, it would likely have the power to do so.
This is different than dictating to states how they shall manage their own public policy on matters that have historically been up to states to manage (e.g., recognition of other government records, like driver licenses etc.)
When I had a CCW, and walking with a date, two homeless guys came out a alley, holding a pipe and a board wit some nails. They said “Give us some money, man”. I showed them my gun and said “I dont thnk so”- their eyes got wide, and they said “No problem man” and went back into the alley. Maybe they were just really agressive scary beggars? Or was it a mugging?
Another time we heard a scream and a woman was being dragged by her purse into a alley by a big tough looking dude. The other guy with me yelled at him, and I brought out my gun. He let go of the purse and ran.
So, I didnt have to shoot, I just “displayed”. Neither was officially reported to police (we tried to talk the woman into calling the cops, but she was too scared so we just walked her home) (I did find a squad car and informed them of the alley guys and they said “thanks we’ll check it out”).
I thought displaying a gun in this manner was illegal?
Yes, and they fiddled with the language and passed essentially he same exact law but had it applied to any gun that had.
Here is the current lent language:
“It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”
Apparently this is good law. Once you tell someone they can’t grow wheat in on their on land to feed to their livestock without selling a grain to anyone else because it might affect the interstate commerce in wheat, you’re pretty much done. The rest is window dressing.
No the government wasn’t even trying. Here is what Wiki has to say about their argument:
“The government’s principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students’ being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation’s financial health.”
They must have sent their interns to write and argue the case, they weren’t even trying anymore.
All they had to do was limit the law to guns that had moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce (which is pretty much every gun) and they were good to go.
There is also congress’ power to pass laws to enforce the full faith and credit provision but I guess most people don’t really like that one:
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Couldn’t they just say that the reciprocity only applies if the gun was involved in interstate commerce like they did after the Lopez decision?
Then its a pretty plenary power with lip service being paid to the commerce clause.
Sure, that is more properly done through the full faith and credit clause and 2nd amendment, just like the civil rights stuff would have been more properly done through the 14th amendment. but that the commerce clause is easier.
Why would you think that? its not legal for you to use it to threaten of intimdate someone unless you are trying to intimidate them into not hurting someone. Heck you can even brandish to prevent some property crime. See LA Riots.
Is this true? A person with a gun can show their gun threateningly to anyone, and the only standard is “I thought they were going to hurt someone”? Or “I saw them with a TV I thought was stolen, so I pointed my gun at them to drop the TV”?
What happened to “Draw your gun only when you feel your life is in danger”?
How much danger was she in? How much danger were we in if we just attempted to stop the guy using muscle?
I thought her life was in danger. Would you have just let her be dragged screaming into the alley?
I don’t know. I just don’t know when the line was moved from “Draw and fire your gun if you belief your life is in danger” to “Draw your gun and threaten someone with it so that they drop the TV they are stealing”
IANAL, and it depends on the state’s specific laws, but the common standard is something along the lines of “would a reasonable person feel that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm?” If the answer to that is “yes”, then you can not only show your gun in a threatening manner, but actually shoot the threat.
Outside of Texas, I don’t think any state authorizes deadly force to defend property, but it’s pretty easy to get into a situation where a reasonable person would feel they’re in danger of death or great bodily harm while trying to protect their property, and then … well see the first paragraph.
Ok, but this seems like “I saw two guys fighting in the parking lot, I thought that one might kill the other one, so I drew my gun and threatened them with it until they stopped fighting”
Strange to me, but whatever.
This also seems like a hijack, so I’ll drop it.
And if I magically got a law degree and was appointed to the bench, I’d probably see through that ruse. Which is a position that many here are giving lip service to, but don’t want that position applied when the issue is dear, precious guns.
And as I asked quite some time ago, show me an example in which Congress legislated on the basis of this power in a way that created patently unequal application of laws within a state. Like the example of how a Mainer would be able to carry a gun without a permit in New York City, but a New York resident would go to jail for the same thing.
So far as I am aware, the only legislation Congress has really done on the basis of this clause has to do with making sure that court decisions in one state will not be ignored by other states. For example, if you live in Florida and are ordered to provide child support, you can’t flee to Georgia and escape the court order as if you are a fugitive absconding to a country with no extradition treaty.
But I will repeat: I understand this game is rigged. I think at least half of the participants in this thread would accept ANY legal justification whatsoever for this proposed law. If Trump wrote a few words on a paper napkin reading: “States can’t arrest legal gun owners, period! Sad!” I think there would be a few people here saying, “Well, Obama did all those executive orders… who are we to judge?”