Constitutional cary

There will be many votes on many topics and issues that will force many Democrats in states to pick a side. The decisions will be used against them in some states that are battle ground states. I am hoping this mitigates the losses the Presidents Party suffers in off year elections. Inch by inch it will be for us going forward.
My point remains: no controversial legislation will pass during the next Congressional session. So the premise of the thread — will we get nationwide constitutional carry during the Trump administration — shows a deep ignorance of how our government works.

Many legislators will file bills in order to make political points and be able to hold press conferences about them. The vast majority of those bills will never make it out of committee.
 
My point remains: no controversial legislation will pass during the next Congressional session. So the premise of the thread — will we get nationwide constitutional carry during the Trump administration — shows a deep ignorance of how our government works.
Our reading comprehension is at different levels it would seem. I don't see any strong beliefs in this thread that it will pass.
 
Last edited:

There are several issues with the bill
  • Concealed carry only - don't let your shirt ride up.
  • Must have both a government ID (drivers license, passport, etc.) and a physical concealed carry permit on your person
  • While it says a person may not be arrested, it allows for a very wide probably cause exception
Good things:
  • Includes magazines and ammo in the definition of handgun
  • Documents need only be "facially valid" therefore you cannot be held while they verify your unexpired permit
  • Burden shifts to the government upon asserting reciprocity (as long as you had the required IDs)
  • Attorney's fees shall be awarded upon successful defense
  • Seems to pierce QI for damages
We need to support the small wins, the Dems didn't get where we are through big changes, the only way back is small wins. Some will say it's not perfect, and throw away the good. That approach go us here.
 
Wake up.
This is not national constitutional carry.
This is not a Federal carry permit.
It in no way grants the Fed additional powers.

We need to support this. This little win would have a major positive impact for generations, and could even lead to more small improvements.

Has a new bill been submitted, or are they going with the Jan. 9, 2023 bill linked to by @pastera ?

This bill shares the language from the old Fix NICS bill
...and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, ...
This has the result of a NH non-res permit issued to a resident of MA, would allow that MA resident to carry in MA or anywhere in the US, on the NH permit.
And people from con carry states don't need any permit, anywhere.

We get this through and the the streets don't run red, and we have the ammunition to push national con carry
 
Wake up.
This is not national constitutional carry.
This is not a Federal carry permit.
It in no way grants the Fed additional powers.

We need to support this. This little win would have a major positive impact for generations, and could even lead to more small improvements.

Has a new bill been submitted, or are they going with the Jan. 9, 2023 bill linked to by @pastera ?

This bill shares the language from the old Fix NICS bill

This has the result of a NH non-res permit issued to a resident of MA, would allow that MA resident to carry in MA or anywhere in the US, on the NH permit.
And people from con carry states don't need any permit, anywhere.

We get this through and the the streets don't run red, and we have the ammunition to push national con carry
I posted the link to the only thing I found - it looks like at this point the text might just be vaporware.

I think we are better off with a SCOTUS opinion stating that any permitting scheme is unconstitutional since that is the best platform to go after special places restrictions and binding signage on private property.
 
Our reading comprehension is at different levels it would seem. I don't see any strong beliefs in this thread that it will pass.
The first post shows a belief that it might be a possibility. It isn't a possibility. It is an impossibility.

I think Trump said last year he wants to do constitutional carry across America. It was a video. What do you think the probability?
 
I posted the link to the only thing I found - it looks like at this point the text might just be vaporware.

I think we are better off with a SCOTUS opinion stating that any permitting scheme is unconstitutional since that is the best platform to go after special places restrictions and binding signage on private property.
It may be better but it has a zero chance. SCOTUS has already ruled that permitting is constitutional, within limits, they aren't going to turn around and go back on that now.

At least reciprocity has a chance, albeit a very small chance, and even smaller that states like MA would actually follow a Fed law. But if it did pass, there is no down side to it. It's the "good" not the "perfect" so for now I'll take it. Once in place it effectively reduces the meaning of a licensing system, and getting rid of licensing becomes just a clean up of out dated laws. Eating the elephant, one bite at a time.
 
Of course national reciprocity isn't perfect. If you visit NYC, or any other anti-gun area, there will be a ton of "gun free zones". But wouldn't it be nice to drive from New England to anywhere else in the country without fear of being arrested for having your carry gun on you while travelling through NY?
I can maybe get on the reciprocity bandwagon.......with no additional federal oversight. I do not like the idea of permitting at all and using it to make it ok cross borders. Permits can be used against you.

Mind you...the whole state of NY, MA, CT and NJ will never go along with it, and would create more laws in response to it. Know that those laws will pass in those states easily.

If your caught with a handgun in those states without a permit the cops are going to arrest and let the courts sort it out later. That will be modus operandi reciprocity or no reciprocity.

It would not make travel thru those states any better and people living in them it would likely be worse. Until SCOTUS slaps them....which will take years. If they even bother.
 
Last edited:
I can maybe get on the reciprocity bandwagon.......with no additional federal oversight. I do not like the idea of permitting at all and using it to make it ok cross borders. Permits can be used against you.
Read the proposed bill, if you state of residence is Con carry, you won't need a permit anywhere. There is no additional Fed oversight in it.
Mind you...the whole state of NY, MA, CT and NJ will never go along with it, and would create more laws in response to it. Know that those laws will pass in those states easily.
Can't pre-empt what the Fed says, and the Fed would be telling them to honor it. No they won't like it and yes it will end up in court.
If your caught with a handgun in those states without a permit the cops are going to arrest and let the courts sort it out later. That will be modus operandi reciprocity or no reciprocity.
So it's nice that the bill includes that the state pays if they arrest and prosecute and lose
It would not make travel thru those states any better and people living in them it would likely be worse. Until SCOTUS slaps them....which will take years. If they even bother.
Maybe, but remember that the new MA laws actually allow for a NH res, who does NOT have a non-res license, to carry while driving in a car, just don't get out [wink]
 
Would be funny if the HR 38 passes senate. Its only been introduced to house. 10 days before inauguration. So it be also funny if it gets done by the 20th. Lol They passed linken Riley in house.
 
SCOTUS has already ruled that permitting is constitutional, within limits, they aren't going to turn around and go back on that now.
They have done no such thing.

They made a ruling that presumed licensing constitutional. Then, in the same ruling, they said:
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

These are not the same thing. Please stop claiming they are.
 
They have done no such thing.

They made a ruling that presumed licensing constitutional. Then, in the same ruling, they said:
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

These are not the same thing. Please stop claiming they are.
right they said it was constitutional but you could challenge the "regime" (a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above.)
In other words, you can challenge the conditions that may be set, aka they said the conditions are limited.

You basically said they didn't then gave an example of them doing exactly that.

So again, licensing is OK but there are limits to the conditions that can be set, and you can challenge those limits.
 
It may be better but it has a zero chance. SCOTUS has already ruled that permitting is constitutional, within limits, they aren't going to turn around and go back on that now.

At least reciprocity has a chance, albeit a very small chance, and even smaller that states like MA would actually follow a Fed law. But if it did pass, there is no down side to it. It's the "good" not the "perfect" so for now I'll take it. Once in place it effectively reduces the meaning of a licensing system, and getting rid of licensing becomes just a clean up of out dated laws. Eating the elephant, one bite at a time.
But did they?
The question presented to the court was:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense

They did not hold that permitting was constitutional, they answered the question that was presented - a state cannot prohibit a person from carrying without special need.

That they may have treated permits as "presumptively lawful" is simply a means to get to the exact controversy before the court
 
I can maybe get on the reciprocity bandwagon.......with no additional federal oversight. I do not like the idea of permitting at all and using it to make it ok cross borders. Permits can be used against you.

Mind you...the whole state of NY, MA, CT and NJ will never go along with it, and would create more laws in response to it. Know that those laws will pass in those states easily.

If your caught with a handgun in those states without a permit the cops are going to arrest and let the courts sort it out later. That will be modus operandi reciprocity or no reciprocity.

It would not make travel thru those states any better and people living in them it would likely be worse. Until SCOTUS slaps them....which will take years. If they even bother.
They will, just like the anti-Bruen hissy fits
But those just bring more cases before the courts that are winnable under current judicial frameworks
 
They will, just like the anti-Bruen hissy fits
But those just bring more cases before the courts that are winnable under current judicial frameworks
And at least the proposed bill addresses getting the money it cost back
 
right they said it was constitutional but you could challenge the "regime" (a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above.)
In other words, you can challenge the conditions that may be set, aka they said the conditions are limited.

You basically said they didn't then gave an example of them doing exactly that.

So again, licensing is OK but there are limits to the conditions that can be set, and you can challenge those limits.
No.

They said that the constitutional nature of licensing is not the question here. If we assume it's constitutional, then we can address the controversy. But, if licensing is abused beyond the special need that we've noted to be unacceptable, we might revisit the entire idea - and here are some avenues to that attack.

It's at least as reasonable to read that footnote as their saying the whole thing probably isn't okay, but that's not at question; bring us that question later, as it is to read it your way.
 
Last edited:
As has been said I believe it's reciprocity between state permits nationwide. Lets hope it is, Constitotional carry can have bad consequences with if not done properly.

Here in SC CC was just enacted, but if you mess up with a permit or if you are CC the punishments are far more severe while CC. I don't know if the legislature did that on purpose to promote PC. CC removed the training requirement for PC but the class is free here in SC. Also with CC you dont get reciprocity with other states that honor PC.
 
And at least the proposed bill addresses getting the money it cost back
Unfortunately, the bill only addresses lawsuits related to the bill, so arrest for carry only.
Lawsuits to overturn unconstitutional BS will still need to be crowd sourced and hopefully have costs recovered as part of the final disposition.
 
At least we can see if cc goes the and amend for open carry later.

Changing the bill now just "carry permit" would solve the issue - however, that would freak out a lot of people including most of the RINOs.

Most people think old western movie when they hear open carry and simply forget they see it as completely normal with cops.
 
I'll take a gamble and spend my $10 here and hope it passes, lol. As it is, I only travel between NH, VT and ME for the most part. I'll occasionally go to MA to see family if I can't get out of it, and just try to avoid any cops.
 
No one in free states really care about it, they don't want the feds making gun laws that might affect them.

Meaning, if the feds create some sort of federal carry permit type of situation..... it could go sideways to their free staters being able to carry without any permit now. States might get the stupid idea that you needing a federal permit to carry might be a good thing. Or some type of national registration ploy going along with it. More big government.

MA and other communist states will go out of their way to nullify any federal permit and add theirs on top of it, and it will get tied up in court forever......and you won't be able to carry there anyway...at least until a case is brought forward.


Constitutional carry is permit less carry. That’s what folks in free states have, by my definition. Those folks want to be able to have the same rights in other states. The answer is national constitutional carry. The right that free states cite in enacting constitutional carry is a right that is recognized and passed to the states via the federal constitution. So that’s what we would like to see at the federal level.
 
I'll take a gamble and spend my $10 here and hope it passes, lol. As it is, I only travel between NH, VT and ME for the most part. I'll occasionally go to MA to see family if I can't get out of it, and just try to avoid any cops.

Gotta make sue that I send letters to our state Representatives and Senators so they vote for it……….🤣
 
Back
Top Bottom