TexasCHLforum.com

No longer valid

I personally would be surprised if the ban concealed carry without doing the same for open carry.
I hope neither sees the light of day.

I wonder just how such a law could be considered constitutional, concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

jimlongley wrote:I wonder just how such a law could be considered constitutional, concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

It depends, there is currently legislation for the "National Right to Carry Reciprocity" which was introduced to allow easier state to state recognition of CCW. If this were to pass, who do you think would Regulate the Federal Portion?


CCW could come under the ICC more easily than one may think.

Would we get refunds for our licenses? Would we get personal federal guards to ensure our safety at all times?

fickman wrote:Would we get refunds for our licenses? Would we get personal federal guards to ensure our safety at all times?

Firearm restrictions are NOT for safety or protection or the chiiiiiildren..the sooner you realize that the more it makes you angry that they just want to CONTROL you! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!

"From my cold dead hands" - Charlton Heston

KaiserB wrote:It depends, there is currently legislation for the "National Right to Carry Reciprocity" which was introduced to allow easier state to state recognition of CCW. If this were to pass, who do you think would Regulate the Federal Portion?

Full Faith and Credit seems to apply to concealed carry licenses as much as gay marriage licenses.

Also, they can enact legislation to enforce the Second Amendment.

KaiserB wrote:CCW could come under the ICC more easily than one may think.

I think that's how they they justified the school kill zone law that was overturned by United States v. Lopez.

jimlongley wrote:I wonder just how such a law could be considered constitutional, concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

The way they made it covered for the LEOSA was to say the officer could carry any firearm that had been involved in interstate travel. I would assume they could ban carry using the same wording. I agree that both are very marginal ties to the regulation of interstate commerce, but they get away with it so often, and SCOTUS allows it on the theory of anything that affects IC, that I think it would hold up until enough people rose up against it.

But, in all honesty, I do not expect that big a measure of gun control on any subject. I expect we might see one or two much smaller test steps, but no major legislation in the next two years. After that....?

jimlongley wrote:concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

Are you saying that Wickard v Filburn wasn't the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination?

They won't go after concealed carry for the simple fact they don't have any empirical evidence that it is bad. There is no nationwide plague of concealed carry license holders shooting up the place. Even if a few license holders went off the reservation with malicious intent it wouldn't impact the overall numbers in a negative way. The data shows that license holders are good, law abiding people. Obama isn't going to pick a fight he can't win...especially with the economy in the toilet.

KD5NRH wrote:

jimlongley wrote:concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

Are you saying that Wickard v Filburn wasn't the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination?

Not that I know anything about the case, but at least it involved commerce, not merely carrying a concealed handgun.

jimlongley wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

jimlongley wrote:concealed carry certainly doesn't involve interstate commerce except in the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination.

Are you saying that Wickard v Filburn wasn't the wildest stretch of a truly warped imagination?

Not that I know anything about the case, but at least it involved commerce, not merely carrying a concealed handgun.

What commerce?

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

bridge wrote:They won't go after concealed carry for the simple fact they don't have any empirical evidence that it is bad. There is no nationwide plague of concealed carry license holders shooting up the place. Even if a few license holders went off the reservation with malicious intent it wouldn't impact the overall numbers in a negative way. The data shows that license holders are good, law abiding people. Obama isn't going to pick a fight he can't win...especially with the economy in the toilet.

Although I agree the economy trumps concealed carry in the short term, it does not mean it's a fight he can't win. For the moment, the economy provides more lucrative hunting grounds. It's not about fixing anything, it's about using a crisis to implement an agenda.

When the time is right, the media will provide all of the empirical evidence needed. People with CCW licenses are a very small percentage of the population. The only question is how receptive the overall population will be to the "facts" created by the opposition.

Lodge2004 wrote: When the time is right, the media will provide all of the empirical evidence needed. People with CCW licenses are a very small percentage of the population. The only question is how receptive the overall population will be to the "facts" created by the opposition.

While there aren't a whole lot of CHers that doesn't mean that it isn't a popular program. Some of the real supporters of the program are Home owners associations, Law enforcement organizations the NRA and The Texas democratic party, even the Texas chapter of the ACLU went to bat for us in the 80th legislative session. Many of those that originally fought it openly support it and admit that their original fears were misguided.

While there are those who would love to trim away our rights. Not many politicians have the stomach to to eliminate the CHL program. Any such attempt would like resylt in a lot of Democrats being voted out. There was letter from Texas Democrats to our Democratic Congress warning them of the consequences of pushing an anti gun agenda. Yeah they will in the next couple of years try to garner support for things like evil gun bans, cheap gun bans , tracable ammo, and the so called gun show loophole. But thy won't dare try to take us head on. They might be crazy but they aren't stupid.

I don't think that the federal government has the constitutional authority to illegalize STATE issued licenses. The worst they can do is ban reciprocity between states. I don't even think they can stop a state from issuing non-resident permits.