Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is state CCW reciprocity constitutional?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is state CCW reciprocity constitutional?

    The discussion on HR 822 got me thinking about this..

    USC Article 1, Section 10.3:

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, ...

    Has Congress already given consent for states to allow for CCW reciprocity?

    Mind you - I am VERY pro-CCW. I learned about this section of the Constitution when I was researching the drivers license compact.
    John Q. Citizen

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  • #2
    The driver's license compact is sharing of information, suspending licenses, agreeing to take action, ect.

    CCW reciprocity is merely a state saying "If you have a CCW in another state, we will let you carry here" The other states don't have to be consulted nor do they have to agree to anything.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dingo990 View Post
      The driver's license compact is sharing of information, suspending licenses, agreeing to take action, ect.

      CCW reciprocity is merely a state saying "If you have a CCW in another state, we will let you carry here" The other states don't have to be consulted nor do they have to agree to anything.
      Although, in practice there is a lot of negotiation between the states. I know that in Michigan our former AG, Mike Cox, lobbied hard to other states to get them to accept Michigan CPLs. We accept all carry permits if you reside in the state of issue.
      There are basically two kinds of people in this world. Those that believe in the moon landing and those that don't.
      http://unistat76.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JQC View Post
        The discussion on HR 822 got me thinking about this..

        USC Article 1, Section 10.3:

        No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, ...

        Has Congress already given consent for states to allow for CCW reciprocity?

        Mind you - I am VERY pro-CCW. I learned about this section of the Constitution when I was researching the drivers license compact.
        Two separate issues!

        You post refers to a State Military. The Constitution declares that because of the possibility of one state building a more powerful military than the total U.S. military, and trying to overthrow the government.

        The SCOTUS has already ruled that states, in their individual authority and issue, can regulate the use of firearms and weapons; and, that the states may individually or collectively regulate the possession of certain firearms without violating the 2nd Amendment. Most states' laws go back to the late 19th century and have been carried over to present time.

        No one in law enforcement is opposed to the 2nd Amendment, they are opposed to the concealed factor without certain restrictions. Unfortunately, there are those who abuse the system and make it necessary to enact laws more stringent in one state as opposed to another state.

        Yes, states can refuse to recognize other states' CCW licenses/permits.
        Last edited by SgtCHP; 08-05-2011, 02:46 PM.
        Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

        [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SgtCHP View Post
          Two separate issues!

          You post refers to a State Military. The Constitution declares that because of the possibility of one state building a more powerful military than the total U.S. military, and trying to overthrow the government.

          The SCOTUS has already ruled that states, in their individual authority and issue, can regulate the use of firearms and weapons; and, that the states may individually or collectively regulate the possession of certain firearms without violating the 2nd Amendment. Most states' laws go back to the late 19th century and have been carried over to present time.

          No one in law enforcement is opposed to the 2nd Amendment, they are opposed to the concealed factor without certain restrictions. Unfortunately, there are those who abuse the system and make it necessary to enact laws more stringent in one state as opposed to another state.

          Yes, states can refuse to recognize other states' CCW licenses/permits.
          Well I believe that's a period to the OP's sentence...

          Comment


          • #6
            That's referring to treaties, not licenses.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dingo990 View Post
              The driver's license compact is sharing of information, suspending licenses, agreeing to take action, ect.

              CCW reciprocity is merely a state saying "If you have a CCW in another state, we will let you carry here" The other states don't have to be consulted nor do they have to agree to anything.
              Not all ways the case. GA will only recognize CCW permits / license from other states only if they will recognize ours. From what I understand the powers that be have to agree to it. Now there are some states that will let any one carry while in there state but they, for example, couldn't carry here.

              As for driver's license thing I believe it is called the Interstate Compact and the last I heard CA was not a party to it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SgtCHP View Post
                Two separate issues!

                You post refers to a State Military. The Constitution declares that because of the possibility of one state building a more powerful military than the total U.S. military, and trying to overthrow the government.

                The SCOTUS has already ruled that states, in their individual authority and issue, can regulate the use of firearms and weapons; and, that the states may individually or collectively regulate the possession of certain firearms without violating the 2nd Amendment. Most states' laws go back to the late 19th century and have been carried over to present time.

                No one in law enforcement is opposed to the 2nd Amendment, they are opposed to the concealed factor without certain restrictions. Unfortunately, there are those who abuse the system and make it necessary to enact laws more stringent in one state as opposed to another state.

                Yes, states can refuse to recognize other states' CCW licenses/permits.
                MANY states guns laws if you do your research were rooted in racism, a black man or black men did something to white people...and laws ensued.

                In many cases what appears racist might actually been socioeconomic and there just happened to be a lot of people of that race in that group. It was and is in many cases about only allowing the "right kind" of people to be armed. And to a degree WHAT they could be armed with, the 1934 act was a tax that precluded poor people from owning those guns, the $200 tax doubled the price of a Thompson Sub machine gun, ensuring the Pinkertons guards HAD them, and the strikers did not.


                But oddly enough Vermont survived all these years without a single law regulating concealed carry of handguns.

                Good for all of us, the rearming of america is color blind, embraces all races and most economic strata.

                Bill
                Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sir, unless you show a law that mentions race your statement is just inflammatory speculation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What does military have to do with CCW reciprocity

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jakflak View Post
                      Sir, unless you show a law that mentions race your statement is just inflammatory speculation.
                      Sir, I suggest that you get a copy of a book called "Every man be armed" by Stephen Holbrook and you'll find lots of gun laws that are based on racism.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sir, it does not have to mention race in the law.

                        if you will simply google "racist roots of gun control" you will see tons of evidence to support exactly what I have said. This FL supreme court decision was issued in 1941
                        I. GUN CONTROL MEASURES HAVE BEEN AND ARE USED TO DISARM AND OPPRESS BLACKS AND OTHER MINORITIES

                        The historical purpose of gun control laws in America has been one of discrimination and disenfranchisement of blacks, immigrants, and other minorities. American gun control laws have been enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive actions against union organizers, [Page 69] workers, the foreign-born and racial minorities.[2] Bans on particular types of firearms and firearms registration schemes have been enacted in many American jurisdictions for the alleged purpose of controlling crime. Often, however, the purpose or actual effect of such laws or regulations was to disarm and exert better control over the above-noted groups.[3] As Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:

                        I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.[4]

                        Implicit in the message of such a law was the perceived threat that armed Negroes would pose to the white community. As applied, therefore, the statute sent a clear message: only whites could be trusted with guns, while Negroes could not.
                        Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by willbird View Post
                          Sir, it does not have to mention race in the law.

                          if you will simply google "racist roots of gun control" you will see tons of evidence to support exactly what I have said. This FL supreme court decision was issued in 1941
                          Sir, I like the fact that you have done your research!

                          Stephen Holbrook (attorney specialized in U.S. Constitution and legal advisor to pro gun movement) has done extensive research on same topic. His book Every Man Be Armed does go into deep detail in laws that were created to stop or make it harder for newly freed slaves from obtaining firearms.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by M1garand View Post
                            Sir, I suggest that you get a copy of a book called "Every man be armed" by Stephen Holbrook and you'll find lots of gun laws that are based on racism.
                            I don't need a book. I have two law degrees and unless it mentions race claiming it's only speculation.

                            Originally posted by willbird View Post
                            Sir, it does not have to mention race in the law.

                            if you will simply google "racist roots of gun control" you will see tons of evidence to support exactly what I have said. This FL supreme court decision was issued in 1941
                            If you google "Tom Hanks is an alien" you will also get a lot of links. It doesn't make it true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I respect your opinions but just showing someone else with the same opinions is circular reasoning.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4758 users online. 266 members and 4492 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X