Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

I applaud the intent, but I agree that it is flawed. I also immediately noticed the lack of open carry and the citation of the commerce clause. Is it just me, or is Congress trying to use the commerce clause as a justification for anything as of late ?

On another, note, John do you think any good bill is possible ? I envision that if anything is passed (even a corrected bill to address open carry concerns, etc.), gun-unfriendly states will respond by legislating as many restrictions as possible, leading to lots of court challenges. Not unlike, what happened post Heller and McDonald.

As much as I like the intent of such legislation, I find it generally poorly reasoned from a constitutional perspective. Keep in mind, I value the 10th Amendment as a legitimate constitutional provision and find little favor in the 14th. I generally think that the 14th, as applied, can be used to destroy the 10th.

If and when this happens, I would prefer it be by the agreement of sovereign states for that is reciprocity. When it comes down from the union government, it is not reciprocity (a voluntary agreement) but merely yet another federal mandate that exceeds the enumerated powers of the union government.

This was posted on an email list of current and former NRA-EVC's.
*********************************************************************************************************

Winchester (former Federal prosecutor) contacted NRA in regards to this proposed national CCW reciprocity bill, and this was the reply he received in regards to his concerns:

So here's the NRA view.....

-----Original Message-----
From: ILA-Contact [mailto:ILA-Contact@nrahq.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:02 PM

Subject: RE: ILA Contact nramem

Dear Mr. Winchester,

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.

The bill is not perfect, but by no means is it a "do-nothing" bill. If
passed the bill would allow anyone who has a CCW from their state to carry
in any other state that issues CCW permits. With the recent addition of WI,
49 states now have laws on the books that allow for CCW permits. Granted,
some states are "may issue" and do not issue many permits, but it only
requires them to have a CCW permit available for the law to apply.

The bill does require that those who carry abide by the laws and
restrictions of the state they are in. However, it specifically says they
are only subject to the restrictions that would apply to someone with an
unrestricted permit from that state. So, while there are restrictions, it
would only be for things like not being able to carry in a government
building or in a restaurant that serves alcohol. By and large, the
restrictions would not differ greatly from those imposed on a permit holder
in CO.

Again, thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to share any of
your thoughts or concerns in the future.


Sincerely,
Kyle C
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division


-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:26 PM
To: ILA-Contact
Subject: ILA Contact nramem

Contact Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
First Name: JAMES
Last Name: WINCHESTER
State: CO


comments:
_________________________________
I've read the text of the bill and I fail to see how this bill does anything for carrying concealed unless all or almost all states allow a license, and those states have no restrictions on the right to carry. In other words, the bill seems like a do-nothing, feel good legislation.

No matter how you cut it, the bill

- seeks yet an additional unwise expansion of the use of the commerce clause,
- it fails to give full interpretation and force to the 2nd Amendment and
- it disregards the 10th Amendment and the constitutional limits on the union government

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... ill/?test=

So, the bill has passed the house. Perhaps the bill can be fixed (amended) in the senate ? If not, I hope it is scuttled. As previously discussed, it is flawed. Flawed bills could be used against us. (Think trojan horse.)