Given the election results tonight, it's time for national concealed carry legislation (with no magazine size limit)!
Separate state gun laws represent conflicting interpretations of the second amendment, as well as interfere with interstate commerce.
Anyone having similar thoughts?
This is a post that I can get behind.
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
Trump will never do this. He's just a plant to deliver a win to Hillary!
He has a lot of promises to live up to. He (and congress) should have their feet held to the fire for:
- National constitutional carry
- Removal of suppressors / SBRs from NFA
- Aggressive enforcement of existing federal firearm laws
- Aggressive investigation into the constitutionality of certain states' firearms law –*use Federal funding as leverage
I'm with you in concept, but concerned about what the actual result would be. I'd rather not lose the aspects of the way the law works in MN where signage doesn't really hold the force of law (worst you can get is a $25 fine if asked to leave the premises and you refuse) and "failure to conceal" is not a crime, etc. Some states have significantly less reasonable laws, and a Federal law superseding them all would need to be carefully crafted.Originally Posted by Skeeter
Not really. Look at Vermont and other constitutional carry states.
2nd Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
NFA items are legal at the federal level but still prohibited by some states. Couldn't this be applied to CCW as well?
I am all for National Concealed Carry, BUT I really don't see how this flies, if Federal Law allows it a state law can still prohibit it. Its like marijuana legalization at the state level in reverse.
How are drivers license laws written?
As mentioned a few days ago, I'm more interested in correcting minor flaws in current Federal regulations. In particular, places where there is a history of administrative lawmaking that stretches reason beyond the breaking point.
Examples:
~Implement a definition of "sporting purpose" that recognizes the blindingly obvious fact that IDPA, USPSA and 3-gun are "sports". This would get the 1301 out from under the boot of 922(r). Essentially, it would be the "Beretta-Benelli Act of 1917." I'm nervous about unintended consequences with this one, though. It would be a disaster if it was done in a way that allowed cheap offshore knockoffs of every innovation in the AR industry to hit the market at the same time or before the original design. That dynamic killed the performance automotive aftermarket.
~Codify the distinction between manufacturer and gunsmith that has been established by case law for 50 years. They "got away with" the recent ITAR action by saying there was no existing definition of manufacturing, because it wasn't actually in the code. But that's complete horseshit. The ATF has a long history of prosecuting people on the basis of the case law definition, and has drafted many briefs laying out exactly where the line was.
~Unwind the more burdensome aspects of 41F.
~Establish that veterans who prefer to have a financial manager of some sort receive their checks and deal with them are not thereby mentally incompetent.
~Shut down "Gun Violence Restraining Order" laws like in CA, where a person can be stripped of their rights and property by essentially anybody who knows them simply accusing them of being dangerous, without hearing or due process.
~(This is aggressive, but what the heck...) Make the NICS process unavailable where it is not required by Federal law. It is a Federal program, federally funded, after all. And you've got these dang hippie freeloaders in some states burdening the system to do things it was never intended to do. This should shut down the Bloomberg strategy of picking off one state at a time, implementing "universal background checks". Right now, all they have to do is make participation in the existing Federal system mandatory, and it's done, a mandate that they have not in any way contributed to funding, but that is in place and operational, turn-key. If the states had to implement their own infrastructure and bureaucracy to get it done, I bet it would be a lot harder.
~Tweak the "armor piercing ammunition" law to say that rifle cartridges, even those that may be used in a handgun, are not included. There would need to be some good definition of a rifle cartridge. Straight wall vs. bottleneck wouldn't cut it, due to examples like .357 Sig and .444 Marlin. Also, find a way to keep things like 5.7x28 and .22 TCM, in which a .224 monometal could be loaded, from triggering the ban of certain projectiles for all purposes.
Essentially, where the antis have been or are taking away the beach, one grain of sand at a time, take back those grains and put some cement around them. In this way, we could move the "common sense" bar toward our side, without triggering the fears of the vast middle for whom 2A really isn't much of an issue either way.
Last edited by OlongJohnson; 11-09-2016 at 08:33 AM.
Fed law wouldn't have to dictate the actual when's/where's of carry just the issuance of permits. My fear is that States with common sense laws would be bound to far more restrictive measures put in place by states who want to torpedo the rights.
First off, don't put the cart before the horse.
1) Repeal reporting requirements for multiple handgun purchases.
2) Remove the section of ACA that allows it to build a defacto database of gunowners.
3) Cut funding and clean house to the ATF. Including the national firearms "trace" center.
4) Move to make suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs 50-state legal and removed from the NFA registry
5) Maybe - MAYBE you can get a case in front of SCOTUS that would rule Constitutional Carry. But don't count on Constitutional Carry being considered seriously by Congress.
Reply With Quote
