Right to Carry: Not Just a Federal Matter | USCCA Concealed Carry Report

This past month, the Supreme Court decided to move forward in the case of a New York regulation essentially barring the transport of handguns outside of one’s home. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, includes all gun owners living in New York City as plaintiffs.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/right-to-carry-not-just-a-federal-matter/
3 Likes

I hate to be so wordy, but I travel frequently enough, I don’t know about anyone here, but I am sick and tired of researching state gun laws. My out of state Florida conceal and carry permit took me a year to get. How much longer does it need to take? Even though in Pennsylvania I had a permit approved within 45 minutes of submitting the application. I am most familiar with the draconian gun laws from the State of Hawaii, especially when trying to transport a weapon, where I still have a residence. So I understand the gravity of the case now being reviewed before the Supreme Court pertaining to New York
Here’s my gripe. Not withstanding the rediculous gun laws of many so called “blue states”, even the constitutional carry states have willy nilly restrictions for out of state carriers, along with Florida reciprocity agreement limitations and fine print, particularly for non residents of Florida.
I understand how important knowledge of gun laws is if you merely own a firearm, much less decide to carry one, and even more so if you decide to use one in self defense. Matching all this up is a headache whenever you travel, and could put a carrier in legal jeopardy if needing to defend oneself in a remote location while traveling. This is not what the Second Amendment has in mind.
Here’s the point. Navigating state gun laws is a nightmare, especially where some state laws are woefully hostile to gun owners. Why don’t Supreme Court judges understand this? And when will they stop attempting to piecemeal gun rights, once every ten years, only to be stepped on again and again by rogue state attorney generals, circuit court judges, and law enforcement officials…
Believe it or not, I have personally encountered local police officers who were NOT intimately familiar with local gun laws in their jurisdictions. Imagine having one of these clowns investigating a crime scene. No, not all law enforcement officers are sacred cows!
Finally, when will the urgency of this become clear to Trump, as well as some of the cowardly Republican Senators, that we need a guy with a pen and a phone in hand, to take some EXECUTIVE ACTION to rectify these interstate discrepancies within the law, especially in transportation? I think they call it RECIPROCITY…
When we had Republicans in control of the cockpit, we got nothing from them but a lump of coaI. I don’t expect this to change on the LEGISLATIVE level, or for the yellow streaks up their spine to simply disappear.

4 Likes

Thanks for the well thought out comment, @Dave32!

I cannot imagine having to memorize all of the laws for my local area for everything - from speeding, car modifications (my sons are car guys and I hear a lot about modification laws), firearms, carrying, trespassing, robbery, lost child, domestic disturbances, etc. and all of the corresponding procedures that the police have to know. I wouldn’t call them sacred cows, but I do cut them some slack on being able to rattle laws off the top of their head.

Playing Devils advocate here - should we even need any sort of executive action when we have the Second Amendment? :thinking:

Glad to have you here, @Dave32!

4 Likes

Hmm, disqus is gone? The comments for the article switches to here?

No.
No law may supersede the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution does not grant our rights, it guarantees our rights, and government is instituted with it’s just powers derived from the people, to secure those rights. When government becomes detrimental to those ends, it ceases to have legitimacy.

A Law Repugnant to the Constitution is Void - US Supreme Court.

When an act injurious to freedom has once been done and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission - Samuel Adams

We face a conundrum, we must adhere to the laws or face prosecution, however, the only laws that are valid and have authority are those that have been passed within the framework and under the authority of the Constitution and in pursuance thereof. At what point do we stand for the Constitution?

While it might sound like a grand idea, the principle and the precedent would be devastating. We already have a National Reciprocity, the Constitution. If we have the Legislative Branch pass a law to ALLOW our rights, they would also gain the power to DISALLOW our rights.

Imagine, (and think about this, as gun issues are done different even when it is the same principle) if we had the Legislative Branch pass laws to ALLOW us to freely move or travel from one side of town to the other or from one town to another (Freedom of Movement), or if they passed a law to ALLOW us to attend a church of our choice, perhaps in a neighboring town… few seem to compare the rights in the exact same manner, as they are nonchalant on firearms… but the reverse would be to DISALLOW us our freedom of movement… or freedom to attend the church of our choice. Or perhaps to require we have a permit before traveling across town…
and believe me, I have dealt with Soviet style government, the requirement to have ‘papers’ as part of my job many years past… and it is not something we would want here. (Born in US, job required foreign travel)

We can think of the Republicans as cowards, but not for their failure to pass legislation, for their failure to demand the Constitution be adhered to, and we the people might need to be careful, as we also may fall into that category as far too many vote… and their vote brings in leftist anti-firearm politicians. Look to New York, California, Chicago, even Florida that passed Red Flag Laws that are unconstitutional… and Look to Virginia… the densely populated areas voted Democrat, and we face the abridgement of our rights. Will we stand firm?

4 Likes

Kind of. We are moving the commenting for the blogs to the Community as of this last Wednesday. Any Blog post from before that day will still be in Disqus.

I’m guessing your next question will be “why?” Disqus shares your email addresses and personal information they may have with other organizations. We don’t. We want you to be able to have conversations without someone selling your private information.

Hope that helps, @Kevin29!

4 Likes

I think it will require a few “grand Ideas” in order to relieve what I call “constitutional constipation”. Our opposition is full of these ideas. My friend, they have taken already, every measure under the sun to “disallow” our rights.
In some cases, apparently this one, it’s going to take an avante guarde approach, improvisational if you will, or “tactic” that is allowed under our constitution, such as executive action, coupled with Supreme Court pro activity.
You are correct, in theory, about your assertion of letting the constitution take it’s course, and thinking, or hoping that our politicos will do the same. Some of them would for sure. But how many? And when do you think that will ever happen, when they join hands and sing kumbaya? We have to deal with reality here, and not theory.
Quite frankly, time is running out. The Republicans have about 4 - 8 years to prove their case as to where we are going in the near future. Their future is in jeopardy. Their best shot is not to bet on another lame duck majority, but to use the tools they have at their disposal that won’t be so easy to eradicate in another election. The Supreme court being the ultimate backstop. Although, ultimately speaking, nothing is written in stone in this country.
Enforcement of this is going to be another challenge.
Of course, the other side will continue to do what they do, whenever their day comes.
We can think of our constitution as an ironclad document. Problem is our enemies don’t. Nor should anyone for that matter. But they distort and regurgitate it according to their own whim. And just like all legal documents, the constitution can be twisted and regurgitated any way shape or form. The Supreme Court, from left to right, is a grand testamonial to this.
What we have now is many people in this country are exempt from constitutional protection from the 2nd amendment, because of lower level law makers and their cronies in the judiciary. And previous Supreme Court rulings seem to sanction this tactic of what they bastardize, in this instance, as “States Rights”
Clearly, in the case of 2nd amendment, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This is not state law. This is federally mandated constitutional law, and clearly, it is being perverted under some state law by misguided ideologues.
I have never seen a statement written as simple as the second amendment. It does not take a scholar or a psychic medium to interpret this. It doesn’t require myriads of preposterous rules, laws, and regulations that jeopardize the very freedom of our citizenry.
When Biden tells you the second amendment does not guarantee the right of a private citizen to even own a fire arm, you know we live in an alternative universe, where anything goes. This is where truth and fact, as Biden would seem to suggest, becomes an unknown quantity.
If Biden can’t figure it out, then that tells me his minions are ignorant to the point of being scary.
If this thing in Virginia becomes a contagion, remember Nevada and the Bundys? Maybe a nuance, but the principle is still the same. This also happened in Colorado several years ago, but never got out of control. Colorado, western Colorado is 2nd amendment country, the problem is DENVER, as they have been saying there for decades.

3 Likes

Who doesn’t understand “shall not be infringed” mean? I surely understand that liberals don’t want to understand as it gets in their way of their desire for total control through socialistic means and total power.
GOD Bless us!

3 Likes

Dave 32 I agree with your statement very well written, but so well written your statement , like you said , that the President should do executive order, lift phone and call, and stroke of pen, you are 100% right and you should send this statement to the President take care Stan

2 Likes

If you read the 10th Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment you will notice the use of “The People”, the Supreme Court has found that where ever “The People” is used is means just that. In truth, the States do not have any say about the "Owning an Bearing Arms. The States took control because no one could stop them.

Semper Fie

[date=2019-12-22

3 Likes

@Dawn Interstate transport of firearms can land you in some serious hot water. I drive from Virginia to Connecticut several times a year. My wife and I travel through DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and New York State. Maryland State Troopers have been known to pull over Virginians just to search their cars for firearms. Sounds crazy, I know. I don’t even contemplate carrying anything construed as a “weapon” on these trips. Not even a tire iron.

As an American, born-and-raised, Retired Veteran and DoD employee, I feel paranoid as hell just travelling. We have foreign nations wanting to ruin the USA. Faceless powers provoking citizens-now everyone wants to dogpile my State and start Revolutionary War 2.0.

I want to live in peace, contribute to society, and enjoy the freedoms the Constitution identifies. It takes hard work, diligent thought and action just to make it nowadays. I just want to protect my family, neighbors and property from lawlessness. Now we are being stripped of that? The only comfort I have (in this life) is knowing other citizens share the same concerns and are doing what they can to make a positive difference.

1 Like

@Handsome_Herb Not a priority to our federal politicians. I have heard plenty of platitudes from my elected “conservative” officials that claim to support the Constitution. I hear about all the great works they are doing before reelection. I hear crickets when it comes to their actions to preserve the 2A.

1 Like

Just saying hi.

Ugh, that’s just not fun. They shouldn’t be able to search your car without cause - @MikeBKY any thoughts on this one?

1 Like

@Dawn I thought I might have read about it a few years ago when we started making this journey up North.

1 Like

It is scary and infuriating! One of the stories sounded like they made a valid pretextual stop for some type of traffic or equipment violation but I do not believe a CCL, in and of itself, is grounds to believe that the person is dangerous, subjecting them to a pat down, or provides probable cause to search the vehicle. That sounds unconstitutional on its face.

1 Like

Only because I have 3 pinhole cameras in my car can I really prove that most of the pretext stops are bogus. I always walk around my car and check my lights every day. Bad habit from the military and having been an NCO in charge of a lot of equipment in my platoon.
One of their favorite things is the cigarette out the window. Unfortunately, I don’t smoke and have COPD. So when I hand them the box with my current inhaler prescription, they generally look at it and walk away.
My cameras have been the bane of more than one bogus ticket. I continuously record my travels and upload them to the cloud. I have won more than one lawsuit over the years. One for getting 9 tickets in 10 days after winning a lawsuit. Police in my county have an injunction from the District Court. They have to call the State Troopers to file against me. The Rangers do not want to get in this mess.
Also, I have been party to people taking a Criminal on Patrol to the state licensing agency and having him stripped of his badge administratively. You just have to get your evidence in order. People just do not know that they have an immense ability to affect the Power Pigs and Criminals on Patrol.
However none of this should be necessary. Due to the state of Power Pigs, Criminals on Patrol, Policing for Profit and Politics, it is .
I have just adopted the policy of not traveling in Socialist Anti=Gun States. I can pretty much do anything that I want to do elsewhere. More of us with guns just need to stop doing any kind of business in those states and not vacationing in places like the Gulag of New York City and Socialist New York State. People with businesses need to start having conventions in Gun Friendly places. Then tell NYC Tourism commission why you are not interested in their city. I am very careful about who I order from and where their businesses are located. You would be surprised that it is not all that hard to find alternative sources.
If those states started losing a few million tourists each year over this, they would certainly take notice.

2 Likes

What I’m hearing you say is that the Constitution trumps any state laws, and I don’t think that’s literally the case - at least, not as it was written and understood before Lincoln. The Constitution defined and granted powers and responsibility to the national government, including the checks and balances, to govern the interactions between the sovereign states and to act on behalf of those same sovereign states in dealing with foreign powers. National laws were not intended to govern individual, local, county or even state behavior WITHIN THE STATE. Outside of what is dictated in the Constitution and its many Amendments, the national government should have no authority or jurisdiction over the states’ laws. The people of several states have recognized this and it is why these states have enacted laws and/or state constitutional amendments to codify the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in their sovereign body of laws. And for the record, the Constitution does not spend much time on our Rights, as it essentially is defining the national government. The Bill of Rights is what defines and protects our God given rights from legislative usurping.

2 Likes

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law may supersede the Constitution. That includes state laws.
Consider, why have a right to freedom of speech, if a state can legislate that you may not have free speech.
Consider, why have freedom of movement, if a state can legislate that you may not freely travel, and/or require a permit to be authorized to travel and only in the permitted areas.

The federal government was granted only few and defined enumerated powers. The states have, state’s rights, and the Tenth Amendment ensures the powers not granted to the federal government is retained by the people and the states, but, that does not mean a state can legislate any abridgement of our individual rights.

Notice, I am not speaking of laws, not laws of the Legislative Branch, but the Constitution.

If we have a right to free speech, the federal government can not deny that, nor can the states… or it is not a right.
If we have a right to keep and bear arms, the federal government can not deny it, limit it, restrict it, require permits or make it prohibitively expensive or difficult with regulatory hurdles, nor can a state, or it is not a right.

The Supremacy clause of the Constitution does put federal laws as superior to state laws, BUT… and this is a key part that is often overlooked, it is only for laws enacted by the legislative branch, where the legislative branch has power and are not prohibited by the Constitution, and the laws must be in pursuance thereof.

In other words, the Legislative Branch can not pass laws that override the Constitution, or encroach on issues that are rightly in the state purview. Nor can a state legislature pass laws that attempt to override the Constitution, as the state only have those powers they have been granted, which are far more than the federal government, but still not sufficient to supersede or override the Constitution.

The Constitution does deal with our rights, not only via the first ten amendments, but with the limitations imposed on the federal government and the state governments as the Constitution is supreme.

3 Likes

Indeed.
If that were the case, any pretext, such as the color of your jacket or the size of your jacket could be eventually used as justification to search you and the Fourth Amendment would have been shredded.

3 Likes

Semper Fie Brother!

1 Like