I am curious as to how Congress justified national CCW for cops alone. Obviously they didn’t call it a civil right. Calling it an ICC issue without extending it to everyone licensed to carry in their home state would be one of those ridiculous stretches I mentioned. And I don’t see how federal police powers could reach that far…

Please, you don’t actually think that our congress-critters actually make sure a law is constitutional before they vote for it, do you? Hell, I bet they rarely read the thing, even when it’s as short as this one.

There’s a Wikipedia article on the act, and from that I was able to get the bill number and look it up on govtrack.

In this case, there was no justifcation given in the preamble of the bill.

The same way such things are always reconciled.

Federal Law trumps State Law.

Uncle: Well, nationwide concealed carry doesn’t, technically, have anything to do with a local ban. If your preferred carry gun is illegal in one state, that means only that you’d have to carry a different gun to carry there. All a nationwide permit would do is mean you wouldn’t have to have a specific state permit to carry.

Preemption (relevant to markm’s post) would be the other interesting question. I’m not sure a federal statute automatically preempts state ones, or that Congress could do so by fiat. Traditionally the states have been able to regulate things the Feds can’t, or be more restrictive than the Feds (within the lax and interpretable limits of the Constitution and the courts).

Congress could “find” that Concealed Carry is vital to the 2nd Amendment, but some States would certainly challenge, and it’d be eventually up to the Supreme Court to decide; and the Court might well decide that open carry and private possession suffice for the uses of the 2nd Amendment.

There are two quite legitimate ways (when they don’t stretch if ridiculously) Congress justifies over-riding state laws: One is through the Interstate Commerce Clause. That is, you have a Congressional finding that some people limit their travel to states that don’t respect their right to carry arms (and it won’t be hard to find a few such people), and this is an obstacle to their full participation in Interstate Commerce, and therefore blah blah blah. It’s legit, the Constitution does give Congress the final say over matters affecting interstate commerce, and that clearly does include overruling a state that makes it harder to travel through to reach another state. The second way would be the civil rights approach – the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the 14th gives Congress the power to extend that protection to states, etc. I certainly think carrying a weapon to protect yourself is a more fundamental right than eating at Dennys, but I know there will have to be considerable change in the composition of Congress before RKBA is generally treated as a civil right…

I am curious as to how Congress justified national CCW for cops alone. Obviously they didn’t call it a civil right. Calling it an ICC issue without extending it to everyone licensed to carry in their home state would be one of those ridiculous stretches I mentioned. And I don’t see how federal police powers could reach that far…

Second, are the implementation details. I see at least 3 main ways: (1) Create a federal CCW licensing agency. States can still issue their own license, or allow CCW without a license, but if you take the extra trouble for the federal license, you can carry anywhere – even if your home state bans CCW. (2) Anyone with a state or local CCW license from their state of residence, issued through a process that meets federal minimum standards, can use that license while traveling in any other state. GFW states can still ban their own residents from CCW, but not license-holders from other states unless they stay long enough to become residents. Vermont would have to adopt an Alaska-style optional license. (3) If you can CCW legally in your home state, you can CCW while traveling in any other state. Vermonters better carry both proof of residence and a copy of the Vermont law while traveling in other states.

I think #2 would be easiest to get through Congress – not the present Congress, but maybe the next time the Dems are voted out. However, just because we know the GFW’s will vote it down is no reason not to keep introducing it. The point is to keep forcing them to go on record against it. Hold their feet to the fire…

Finally, IANAL, but as far as I can tell the President would be able to implement #1 unilaterally. Adopt a test from somewhere and appoint everyone who pays the fee and passes the test and background check a “Volunteer Federal Marshal”. This will not only put them under the national CCW for cops law, but also protects them from overzealous locals under the laws about “interfering with a federal officer”. The only iffy part is in the funding – Congress controls the money. But it’s not going to happen. I’ve suggested in the past that W ought to visit Margaret Thatcher and see if he could borrow her balls…

*Technically, Kaine promised to ‘not propose new gun laws’. Of course, anyone paying attention realized immediately that new laws come from the legislature, not the Governors office – and Kaine never promised not to sign said laws; so it was a typical meaningless, hollow campaign promise from day one.

“Band of Brothers”, my ass. Webb may have been a heroic Marine in Viet Nam, but nowadays he’s just another spineless politician.

The old English common law concept of self defense isn’t particularly controversial–even most antigunners will agree that even if the 2A doesn’t protect the right to self defense, the 9a certainly must. Nobody really thinks self defense isn’t a constitutionally sound concept even if it isn’t specifically enumerated (just like the right to say, contraception or abortion–which is why we pro gunners need to be careful about what other rights we don’t support).

Pretty clearly denying a CCW permit is denying the right to practice self defense–why not simply argue that DC, IL, etc are in violation of the 14A?

Most of the fears about national CCW reciprocity are paranoid nonsense. It’s NOT a national permit any more than states recognizing each others’ drivers licenses is a national driver’s license.

States rights and all that….

If you want to give the Gov’t practice for a National ID card…this would be a good first start.

Nah, they’ve already got hat down with SS and drivers licenses.

I’ve always been lukewarm on national CCW. I think, as the TN Constitution attests, that regulating the wearing of arms is a power states have. My fellow gun nuts typically disagree.