Excellent commentary from 2A specialist attorney Mark Smith, here:
36 COMMENTS
Wholeheartedly concur with the judge’s decision. Using the same logic, all requirements for permits to possess & bear firearms should be invalidated. According to the blue states thought process, all drivers licenses, marriage certificates, contracts, etc… would be invalid upon crossing state lines. The other irony is that illegal gun charges are the first things dropped when people are arrested for actual crimes.
IANAL, but it seems to me another possible line of argument for this that doesn’t involve the 2nd Amendment (because we know what the Left thinks about 2A-based arguments) would be to implicate the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
In this case, New Hampshire issued a CCW license to the defendant, confirming that he is a law-abiding citizen with full gun rights, in compliance with NH law. When Massachusetts decided to NOT honor that license, they basically said “F— You, your lawfully-issued license is worthless” to New Hampshire. Which is pretty much the opposite of “Full Faith and Credit”.
Extending Bruen‘s reasoning to the full Constitution (which should be a given; the 2nd Amendment is neither superior nor inferior to any other Constitutional provision), the burden would then be on Massachusetts to demonstrate text, history, or tradition for not honoring government-issued documents or licenses from other states.
To whit: First, are the following documents honored if you cross into Massachusetts, or does Massachusetts consider them invalid because they were not issued IN Massachusetts?
– Marriage license/certificate (see: Obergefell v. Hodges)
– Divorce/separation decree
– Driver’s license
– Vehicle title and registration
– High school diploma
– Birth certificate
– Adoption decree (for yourself or your adopted kid[s])
– Legal name change decree
Second, what historical analogue or precedent can Massachusetts point to that they have ever not honored any of these?
The answer to the first is, they’re all honored in Massachusetts even if they weren’t issued IN Massachusetts, and the answer to the second is, there is no historical analogue or precedent that they were ever NOT honored (with the exception of same-sex marriage certificates, but again, SCOTUS corrected that in Obergefell v. Hodges).
Ergo, there is no historical or Constitutional justification for failing to honor a CCW license issued under another state’s applicable laws.
Like I said, IANAL. Would any actual attorneys care to weigh in? Am I completely off-base here?
Note: In case anyone asks, I deliberately omitted some items from the list of state- or county-issued documents and licenses, such as:
– Naturalization documents, immigration visas, and/or “green cards”
– Social Security cards
– Passports
– Selective Service registration
I omitted them not because I didn’t think of them, but because they are federal documents, not state or county ones, and the question at hand pertained to CCW licenses issued by a state or county in accordance with state laws.
You could add restraining/protective orders and child support payment enforcement orders.
@ Archer – “…there is no historical or Constitutional justification for failing to honor a CCW license issued under another state’s applicable laws.”
To act as the Devil’s Advocate, is a carry permit just a local license or is it an important legal document? There’s a big difference from a legal standpoint. See this article:
It seems to me that the author makes a good point. Not every trivial license does get honored (universally) by all states. Only the legalistically important ones. Therefore, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (alone) is probably not enough to get Concealed Carry Permits the same wide respect enjoyed by driver’s or marriage license holders.
The approach to get it done is the one taken by this MA judge. The courts need to find that, after Bruen, the “Right to Bear Arms” has been found to be an individual Constitutional Right. A Right that is elevated to such a level of importance that it cannot be set aside by simply crossing a State Line.
After all, a hunting or fishing license, issued by one State, would not be respected by any other State. It is expected that hunting/fishing licenses convey a low-level privilege that is limited, in scope, to the boundaries of the issuing State. Unfortunately, in the past, Concealed Carry Permits have been grouped into this same “low-level local privilege” classification, similar to hunting and fishing licenses. To change this dynamic, we must get the courts to elevate a Concealed Carry Permit to universal legal status.
To use an example, a marriage is a binding legal contract between two people. A marriage does not dissolve just because one or both partners cross a state-line. Marriage is elevated to the level of being an important (and universal) legal construct. We must, based upon the Bruen Decision, elevate the Right to Bear Arms to also be an important and universal legal construct. We must get it found to be a fundamental Constitutional Right that does not dissolve just because one crosses a state-line.
Once we establish the legal concept that the Right to Bear Arms is individual, universal and persistent, then a Concealed Carry License becomes an important legal document, like a marriage license, that will then fall under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” and which must be universally recognized.
So, we don’t necessarily need a new Federal Law to achieve national reciprocity. We just need the courts to accept that the 2nd Amendment makes the Right to Bear Arms a universal right that transcends state boundaries. Then a concealed carry license becomes an important legal document akin to a marriage license or an adoption decree.
@TN_MAN: First, in the words of Seth Godin, “The devil doesn’t need an advocate. The brave need supporters, not critics.” 😉
Second, the “Right to keep and bear Arms” is protected in the U.S. Constitution, and every State Constitution I’ve looked has some provision listing it as a Right within that State’s boundaries. Marriage is not listed in the U.S. Constitution (or to my knowledge, any State Constitution), nor is operating a motor vehicle on public roads, nor is adopting another human being as a legal child.
We can make a 9th Amendment claim for any/all of these, but it doesn’t change that none of them are specifically enumerated, yet all 50 States recognize them. (Hunting licenses aren’t, but that can be explained by each State having the authority to manage its lands and natural resources, which does not and cannot affect another State’s lands or resources. And most if not all States do offer non-resident hunting licenses.) In contrast, RKBA is specifically enumerated and protected, and therefore any license or document in favor of it should already be “elevated” to nation-wide/universal status.
Looking at it from the other direction, if a person commits a crime that bars him/her from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. 922, that prohibition is applied nation-wide regardless of where the crime took place. Logically, if the prohibition is recognized nation-wide, then the right should be equally recognized nation-wide. (Note: I’m not saying it’s right that we strip RKBA from anyone, but it is the current system we have to deal with.)
But where I think we agree is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. You described the legal system as it currently exists (e.g. important “universal” legal documents vs. lower-level “privileges”), and I described a bunch of “shoulds” (e.g. documents which support RKBA “should” already be recognized nation-wide). The question is, how do we get from here (as it currently is) to there (as it “should” be)?
And the answer to that is, just like this MA Judge did: by recognizing that a U.S.-Constitutionally-protected Right — including the Right to keep and bear Arms — transcends State boundaries, and the individual States do not have the authority to limit the exercise based on which jurisdiction a citizen hails from. We wouldn’t accept that an out-of-state resident doesn’t have the right to attend church, or speak freely, or be secure against unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures, etc.; any more than we would accept that someone’s marriage certificate or driver’s license is “no good” in another State unless that State specifically says so through legislation. Ergo, the notion that RKBA or any other enumerated Right ends at any State border should (there’s that word again) be equally unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution.
An equally powerful approach would be to bring what is often referred to as the “interstate commerce clause”. which clearly prohibits any actions that limit”trade amongst the several states”/ It seems anyone travelling from one state into another has at leas SOME hint of ‘trade”. If nothing else, when you drive across one of those imaginary lines on the dirt to leave ine state and enter another, you are using an expensive piece of machinery (car, perhaps bicycle, train, etc) and using sie form of energy to make that thing move. thus you are using SOMETHING physical to phsyclly move between ine state and another. This is prot4ected under that cOmmerce Clause.
If Mr.Filburn, back in 1936 or whenever, got whacked hard for growing what in his own dirt for the sole and express purpse of feeding his own family, the court “determining” that if he had NOT done so someone else in another state could have grown that same wheat and transported it between states to end up in the Filburn family supper table, then the carrying of a firearm from one state into another is equally governed, and thus permissible.
I firmly believe that court got it wrong, but it remains binding as a decision. The underlying principle that no state can do anything to liit orresrict trade amngst the several states wouldstill prohibit Mass from denying the validity of this duly acquired Mother May I Card from New Hampshire.
Frankly, it’s rather absurd that this level of common sense is not the standard practice. Thank you, judge Coffey
Finally, a judge has stated the obvious. The Emperor has no clothes.
Well, it’s about time!!!
It will be fun to hear the Left wailing and gnashing teeth.
Why has that never dawned on me before?
You keep all of your Constitutional rights crossing state borders except for the 2nd Amendment.
AD
Mas, please pardon my rant here. 🙂 I know many people will disagree with my opinions here but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Glad to see a State Court Judge FINALLY uphold the 2nd and 14th Amendment PROTECTIONS of a U.S. citizen.
Let’s review class…
The “Bill of Rights” are prohibitions. They are not “rights” granted to the people by the federal government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were drafted by the individual states to tell the federal government explicitly what they could NOT do to the citizens of the individual states.
The Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever. But the anti-gun zealots don’t want you to know that.
The anti-gun zealots want you to believe that it is the Second Amendment that gives law-abiding Americans the right to keep and bear arms, and that the government can simply take that right away whenever they want. Well that of course, is BS.
Again, the Second Amendment was written by the individual states to tell the new federal government that it could NOT infringe upon the natural right of the people of the individual states to keep and bear arms, by PROHIBITING the federal government from having ANY legal jurisdiction over firearms in the U.S. PERIOD.
Every single federal firearms law ever written is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Does the federal government exercise jurisdiction over firearms in the U.S.? Yes they do and, but they do so ILLEGALLY. How do they get away with it? Because no State or Federal Court, or the Supreme Court of the United States yet… will do what is necessary to stop them.
Conversely, the 14th Amendment was written by the federal government to tell the states what THEY could NOT do to U.S. citizens.
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This means that NO state can ‘enact or enforce’ ANY law that abridges the privileges and immunities (i.e., 2nd Amendment) of citizens of the United States.
Therefore, every single state gun law ever written is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
And it looks like this Massachusetts State Judge John Coffey FINALLY is a Judge that recognizes that under the 14th Amendment, it is illegal for states to violate the 2nd Amendment of U.S. citizens in every state.
That is all.
I for one don’t disagree.
Neither does SCOTUS, for that matter. See: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which explicitly says that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the States via the 14th Amendment, and therefore enforceable against the States. Chicago’s argument was that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the federal government from limiting gun rights, and the individual States can do whatever they want; they cited several late-19th-century SCOTUS opinions to that effect.
SCOTUS set them straight and overturned those previous (and terrible, IMO) opinions.
Mass. Judge John Coffey’s opinion is refreshing, certainly, if for no other reason than because a Blue-State judge followed SCOTUS’ direction and got it exactly right.
Exactly.
Pure and simple excellence.
Hey Mas, how about putting these talks on here with captions for us older DEAF shooters.
Without it, all we get is watching some voiceless flapping jaws to look at.
George, click on the CC button on lower right of screen, the closed caption text will come up and you can read it.
The vast majority of “Closed-Captions” are transliterations made by “Artificial Intelligence” {transcribers} and are subject to substantial errors of translation wherein words of opposite meaning are substituted because the speaker had insufficiently enunciated a phoneme such as “un” which precedes the alternative {unintended meaning} word “constitutional”;
Critical reading and interpretation [by the auditory impaired] of the CC are necessary to compare the translation with the “lip-reading” of the video of the speaker’s facial and lip movements.
Dennis,
Thanks. In other words, we can’t trust machines. “To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.” I think I heard that in the 1970s.
I always enjoy Mark’s commentary and find it to be more on point, factual and less hyperbolic than some of the other commentary out there on firearms law. Another person I enjoy and find useful is William Kirk on the YouTube channel Washington Gun Law.
When I heard about this judge’s ruling in Massachusetts, my reaction was kind of a “Why didn’t I think about that?” The logic and reasoning of it is straightforward and rather simple, isn’t it? I hope this line of thinking is expanded and becomes the foundation for dismantling a lot of reciprocity issues. Wonder if the Commonwealth will appeal or simply let the ruling stand so it only applies to this one defendant?
Bill Kirk is exceellent. He is VERY strong on Washington Law but much weaker in other states (even Oregon) and Fedral law. He readil admits this.
I had the priviledge of attending a live session with him just a week ago.
He did not discuss this Massachussetts case, as he was focussing on informing us of the details of Washington gun laws, both legislative and case law. Definitely worth following him.
Another case of the poor treatment of the 2nd A. I’m glad that I lived long enough to see a MA judge realize that.
As CBT noted above: “Its about time!”
In the Bruen Decision, Justice Thomas wrote: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion).”
However, for the last century or so, it has been even worse than ‘2nd Class’ treatment. The Federal Government, the States, and the courts have treated the right to bear arms as a low-level privilege. In Blue States, it has even been treated as a disfavored low-level privilege. One that ranks far, far, far, below the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.
Considered this thought experiment: Suppose I am a TN resident but that I have friends or family members living in some Blue State that hates firearms (California, NY, New Jersey, etc.). Now suppose that I fly to that Blue State to visit these people.
While I am there, a family member loans me a motor vehicle to use for local travel. Further suppose that I am stopped by the police who request to see my driving license. I produce my TN license. It is checked and found to be in order. There is no problem (with the license anyway) since my TN license is accepted in ALL 50 States.
Now, suppose this same case EXCEPT instead of loaning me a motor vehicle, a family member loans me a snub-nose 38 special revolver (with ammo and pocket holster) to use for personal protection. Again, I am stopped by the police who find that I am armed. They want to see my carry permit and I produce my TN handgun carry license. Despite it being in good order (in TN), the police are likely to arrest me, confiscate the firearm and (depending upon the State), I may well be facing felony charges!
Clearly, the “Right” to bear arms is being ranked lower (much lower) than the privilege to operate a motor vehicle.
Even in my home State of TN, this is true. In TN, both driving and Handgun Carry licenses are issued by the TN Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security. Therefore, they are often dated to expire together.
Both of my licenses were set to expire in May of 2020, so, in March of 2020, I went to a local TN DOSHS office to renew them. Covid-19 was just ramping up but I was able to put in my renewal requests before everything shut down. I, literally, put in the paperwork to renew both licenses on the same day and during the same hour.
The result? Within 10 days the TN DOSHS had mailed me my new drivers license. It took them 6 weeks to get me a renewed Handgun Carry Permit. Clearly, in terms of priority, even the “Gun Friendly” State of Tennessee was treating the administration of drivers licenses (a privilege license) as a higher “priority” than the administration of carry permits which are a Constitutional Right. Second class right? Or low level privilege?
Every out-of-state resident who was ever charged with a felony for carrying a firearm without a license, in MA, should immediately appeal (if previously convicted) or make a motion to have pending charges dismissed based upon this judge’s ruling. The American Left will continue to treat the Right to Bear Arms as a low level privilege (a disfavored one, at that) until we hold their feet to the Bruen fire!
Clearly, in terms of priority, even the “Gun Friendly” State of Tennessee was treating the administration of drivers licenses (a privilege license) as a higher “priority” than the administration of carry permits which are a Constitutional Right. Second class right?
I wouldn’t read too much into it. If Tennessee CCW laws are anything like Oregon’s (the state I’m familiar with), the issuing agency has more back-end checking to do with CCW renewals than with DL renewals.
In OR, they don’t need to run your name and fingerprints through the FBI or NICS for the DL, but by law, they do for the CHLs (Concealed Handgun Licenses). They don’t have a choice; the CHL issuance/renewal statute says they must (the statute says “shall”) run applications and renewals through the same state and federal background checks.
With COVID ramping up in 2020, the FBI was locking down just as hard as anywhere else, so CHL renewals that require their approval were taking longer than normal. It’s nice to hear TN’s DL renewals were going relatively normally — OR’s DMV was locked down like crazy, to the point that the State issued a directive that police state-wide should be lenient with expired licenses and tags because renewals were taking so damn long.
OTOH, if TN does NOT require FBI/NICS approval for CCW renewals, then I’d be suspicious. You’d probably know better than I whether that’s the case.
Archer – “if TN does NOT require FBI/NICS approval for CCW renewals, then I’d be suspicious.”
When one first applies for a carry permit (especially an enhanced one), there are a bunch of hoops to jump through. These include fees, training classes, finger-printing, being photographed, in-depth background check, etc..
However, the hoops are reduced when one just renews an existing permit. Basically one:
1) Pays a renewal fee
2) Fills out a form: (From TCA: “The renewal application shall be on a standard form developed by the department of safety and shall require the applicant to disclose, under oath, the information concerning the applicant as set forth in subsection (c), and shall require the applicant to certify that the applicant still satisfies all the eligibility requirements of this section for the issuance of a permit.”)
3) Your photographs may be updated.
4) I assume some sort of reduced background check is performed. You do not have to resubmit your fingerprints. I assume that they would simply run your name to search for outstanding warrants. Maybe a quick NCIS check, similar to that used when purchasing a firearm, would also be run.
However, the TN DOSHS processes far, far more drivers license applications than handgun permits. I cannot believe that handgun permits take more effort or manpower. What I suspect is that the manpower resources devoted to processing drivers license applications far exceed those devoted to processing handgun permits.
If so, then this resource allocation is, itself, a statement on the higher priority of drivers licenses versus handgun permits from the point of view of the Tennessee State Government.
the issuing agency has more back-end checking to do with CCW renewals than with DL renewals.
In OR, they don’t need to run your name and fingerprints through the FBI or NICS for the DL, but by law, they do for the CHL
and my serious response to this sad FACT is WHY? If such behaviour does not clearly indicate a lesser status is atributed to the Mother May I Card, what could? Yes, for first issue of the Card, but for renewals? WHY? We all know if we ever “do a bad” that would disqualify us for possession of arms, the stete of residence will often get that news long before anyone else. hey LOVE to find “cause” to take one’s guns away, and this wold do it. Anything that would disqualify my renewal of my Mother May I Card would also disarm me, and tbey’d have nipped round to take up my guns long before that Card would need renewal. This is smokescreen.
On a side note, here is another judicial decision that is positive for 2nd Amendment Rights. See this news story:
I’m glad to see they’re getting this one right, too. Lawsuits usually move so slowly, the plaintiff is 21 before it’s resolved, at which point they CAN buy whatever gun they want, so an age-based “as-applied” lawsuit is declared moot. That the plaintiff had to wait three years before being “allowed” to exercise his/her rights, never seemed to matter.
But as we all know, “A right delayed is a right denied.” Upon reaching age 18, the age of majority, a citizen should enjoy full recognition of ALL his/her rights. (Put another way, if you can enlist in the military and give your life for your country, vote in elections, and sign your own contracts, you should be able to own whatever gun you want.)
Good to see courts finally understanding that and allowing a prima facie challenge go forward.
(As an aside, I’m surprised nobody tried a class action on this before [AFAIK], with a rotating list of “class” plaintiffs who are perpetually in the 18-20 age range. It has always been individual challenges, which get mooted the second they turn 21.)
“Powerful language by judge Coffey”
More powerful than the legal implications of “…SHALL NOT be infringed”???
So much for ‘powerful language’.
Words only carry so much weight in this. When the law and their attendant nterpretations are bastardized to fit an agenda by evildoers, words are wasted by those abiding illegitimate constructs skewed against them. I keep wondering how much longer words will carry the day. If, in fact, they are even now. What else remains hidden behind the curtain?
You mean a blue state judge made a correct ruling on a Second Amendment case? My! My! There must be a hockey game being played in Hell!
I would like to expand, a bit more, on my thoughts on the legal aspects of the Right to Bear Arms.
IANAL, but it seems to me that legal documents, licenses, and permits fall (generally) into one of two categories:
1) In-State Legal Document – Legal documents that are expected to have force only within the boundaries of the issuing State.
2) Interstate Legal Documents – Legal documents that are not geographically limited and which do have legal force across state lines.
The Constitution includes a “Full Faith and Credit” clause that covers interstate acceptance of legal documents. However, the law is practical. If a document is a limited (In-State) document, then the above clause is not expected to apply. Logically, the above clause can only apply to documents that function as interstate legal documents.
There are many licenses that fall into the “In-State” category. For example, one State cannot engage in wildlife management on lands controlled by another State. So, hunting and fishing licenses fall into the In-State category. Many professional licenses (realtor, contractor, barber, etc.) also fall into the In-State category. Before I retired, I was registered as a Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Tennessee. I was authorized to provide engineering services and to seal engineering documents in TN. However, my authority expired at the State line. If I had wished to also practice engineer in other States, I would have had to register as a PE in those States. My TN PE license was not recognized by any other State.
However, there are many documents and licenses that fall into the interstate category. A marriage license, for example, is expected to carry force across state lines. One cannot divorce one’s spouse by simply fleeing across a state line! 🙂
There is also an interstate highway system and motor vehicles routinely operate across state lines. Therefore, a driver’s license also falls into the interstate category.
There is a dispute, among the States, as to which category concealed carry permits fall. Some States (Arizona, New Hampshire, Tennessee, etc.) will honor a carry permit issued by any other State. These States also enter into agreements, with other States, to try to get them to honor their carry permits. Clearly, the above States place carry permits into the Interstate category.
Other States (California, New Jersey, New York, etc.) refuse to honor carry permits from any other State. Clearly, they wish for carry permits to be placed (legally) into the In-state category. They do not consider that a carry permit has ANY AUTHORITY beyond the boundaries of the issuing State.
The task, therefore, of the 2A Community, is to get carry permits recognized as Interstate Legal Documents. Recent Supreme Court Decisions have established that:
a) The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right.
b) It is related to the Natural Right of Self-Defense.
c) It includes the Right to Bear Arms outside of the home (Bruen).
This MA judges decision now says that the Right to Bear Arms extends across State lines. He is saying, effectively, that carry permits are interstate legal documents.
If we can get the Supreme Court to confirm this reasoning, then National Concealed Carry is a “Done Deal”.
Can we get there? I think so. It may take years of court decisions but given that:
I) The 2nd and 14th Amendments are national in scope.
II) Crime occurs in all States, hence, the need for self-defense is not limited by State boundaries.
III) If carry permits are declared interstate legal documents, then the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will kick in to force acceptance nationwide.
The Left has blocked National Concealed Carry on the Federal Level for years. However, if we play our card right, we can effectively achieve it by way of the courts rather than Congress. This MA judge is showing us the way forward toward National Concealed Carry!
the entire concept of a Mother May I Card to acquire purchase, carry, or use a firearm is a false construct.We HAVE the right. ANyYrestriction or regulation or licensing orpermitting violates the cncept of right”. Yes, I have to register to vote, but that request canno be denied exceptin few circumstances.. felon, for example, or mentally incompetent. From whence comes this entire business of “permits” to exercise that right to arms? Go ask Tim Sullivan, former rotten politiician in New York. HE invent4ed the whole concept.
@ Tionico – “the entire concept of a Mother May I Card to acquire purchase, carry, or use a firearm is a false construct.”
I understand this viewpoint. It is a right-wing viewpoint. People on the Right tend to view environmental influences (firearms, drugs, alcohol, poverty, poor education, etc.) as “aggravating factors” in negative human behavior. For example, a firearm acts as a force multiplier. Therefore, a violent person armed with a firearm can (potentially) do more harm than one who is unarmed.
Leftists, however, have a “Blank Slate” view of humanity. They view humans as puppets who only dance to environmental factors and who have no freewill of their own. Therefore, they view environmental influences as “Causal Factors” rather than as “Aggravating Factors”.
This is a significant worldview shift. It is the reason that leftists blame the object, rather than the person, for evil. It is the reason that left-wing politicians continue to push for prohibition polices. Prohibition is, purely, a left-wing concept. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Right supports prohibition.
Indeed, after the failure of alcohol prohibition, the American Left projected their own failure onto the Right and claimed that alcohol prohibition was a right-wing failure. This is a lie or, at best, a half-truth.
The American Right did, indeed, start the movement against alcohol. However, it started as a right-wing “Temperance” Movement. The emphasis was on self-control to abstain from alcohol. The American Left eventually co-opted the movement and took it over. In the hands of the Left, it morphed from a “Temperance Movement” into a movement for the “Prohibition of Alcohol”.
Make no mistake. All (and I do mean ALL) prohibition movements are left-wing in nature and in ideology. It is an oxymoron to speak of a Right-Wing Prohibition Movement with respect to banning an environment influence. (Abortion is different since it is an ACT – Medical Procedure – to be regulated rather than an environmental influence to be banned.)
Getting back to my point, about half of the population leans toward the Left-Wing Worldview. Therefore, about half of the population places the blame for violence upon the tool rather than the person. With such a significant portion of the population having attitudes that range from distrust of firearms to outright hatred of firearms (Hoplophobia), one is likely to never have the political support to take the 2nd Amendment at face value. We are likely to never get “Constitutional Carry” nationwide as a matter of realpolitik.
Therefore, the “Mother May I Card” is a fact of life even if it the concept of it is repugnant to a direct reading of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, as a practical matter, out best efforts probably lie in:
1) Getting Constitution Carry installed in as many States as possible.
2) Getting Carry Permits accepted as Interstate Documents so as to achieve National Concealed Carry.
Given the prevalence of the left-wing mindset in the population, we will never get the 2nd Amendment taken at its “bare face” (literal) value. The SCOTUS has always considered that the Rights listed under the Bill of Rights are not unlimited. The American Left will always fight for limits on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If the Left had their way, they would gut the 2A and make it a “Dead Letter of the Law”.
Given the unrealistic views of the Left, it is a continual fight just to get our 2A rights acknowledged and honored at all. A total 2A victory is a “Blue Sky” goal.
Can’t we just saddle one if those red ‘therapy pet’ vests over the slide of a pistol and bring it anywhere?
That trick seems to work in any circumstance.
“Can’t we just saddle one if those red ‘therapy pet’ vests over the slide of a pistol and bring it anywhere?”
Even better, we could take a page from the Movie ‘Red’ and carry “The Pig”.
“Peace through Superior Firepower” – Roman Emperor Hadrian
The real issue is how the narrative has been turned around since the 1960s. Very slowly, the Left has been able to argue about “common sense” even though it was “common sense” that self defense was a basic human right recognized under English Common Law. Our founding fathers didn’t argue vociferously enough about rights because, at the time, everyone understood that we were allowed to defend ourselves and then needed to remind the government that they couldn’t infringe our access to weapons. Gun restrictions prospered during Jim Crow, and Northern cities made a lot of hay with “Saturday Night Special” laws, all of which were designed to prevent marginalized committees from defending themselves. When gun-grabbers refer to historical precedent, they often have to call back those racist rules. There was an implicit understanding 100 years ago that self-defense with the best tool available was a right. David Harsanyi wrote a good little text about this several years ago.
Wholeheartedly concur with the judge’s decision. Using the same logic, all requirements for permits to possess & bear firearms should be invalidated. According to the blue states thought process, all drivers licenses, marriage certificates, contracts, etc… would be invalid upon crossing state lines. The other irony is that illegal gun charges are the first things dropped when people are arrested for actual crimes.
IANAL, but it seems to me another possible line of argument for this that doesn’t involve the 2nd Amendment (because we know what the Left thinks about 2A-based arguments) would be to implicate the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
In this case, New Hampshire issued a CCW license to the defendant, confirming that he is a law-abiding citizen with full gun rights, in compliance with NH law. When Massachusetts decided to NOT honor that license, they basically said “F— You, your lawfully-issued license is worthless” to New Hampshire. Which is pretty much the opposite of “Full Faith and Credit”.
Extending Bruen‘s reasoning to the full Constitution (which should be a given; the 2nd Amendment is neither superior nor inferior to any other Constitutional provision), the burden would then be on Massachusetts to demonstrate text, history, or tradition for not honoring government-issued documents or licenses from other states.
To whit: First, are the following documents honored if you cross into Massachusetts, or does Massachusetts consider them invalid because they were not issued IN Massachusetts?
– Marriage license/certificate (see: Obergefell v. Hodges)
– Divorce/separation decree
– Driver’s license
– Vehicle title and registration
– High school diploma
– Birth certificate
– Adoption decree (for yourself or your adopted kid[s])
– Legal name change decree
Second, what historical analogue or precedent can Massachusetts point to that they have ever not honored any of these?
The answer to the first is, they’re all honored in Massachusetts even if they weren’t issued IN Massachusetts, and the answer to the second is, there is no historical analogue or precedent that they were ever NOT honored (with the exception of same-sex marriage certificates, but again, SCOTUS corrected that in Obergefell v. Hodges).
Ergo, there is no historical or Constitutional justification for failing to honor a CCW license issued under another state’s applicable laws.
Like I said, IANAL. Would any actual attorneys care to weigh in? Am I completely off-base here?
Note: In case anyone asks, I deliberately omitted some items from the list of state- or county-issued documents and licenses, such as:
– Naturalization documents, immigration visas, and/or “green cards”
– Social Security cards
– Passports
– Selective Service registration
I omitted them not because I didn’t think of them, but because they are federal documents, not state or county ones, and the question at hand pertained to CCW licenses issued by a state or county in accordance with state laws.
You could add restraining/protective orders and child support payment enforcement orders.
@ Archer – “…there is no historical or Constitutional justification for failing to honor a CCW license issued under another state’s applicable laws.”
To act as the Devil’s Advocate, is a carry permit just a local license or is it an important legal document? There’s a big difference from a legal standpoint. See this article:
https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/constitution-101-full-faith-and-credit-2871/#:~:text=Article%20IV%2C%20Section%201%20of%20the%20Constitution%20requires,rights%20advocates%20have%20pushed%20for%20national%20concealed-carry%20reciprocity.
It seems to me that the author makes a good point. Not every trivial license does get honored (universally) by all states. Only the legalistically important ones. Therefore, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (alone) is probably not enough to get Concealed Carry Permits the same wide respect enjoyed by driver’s or marriage license holders.
The approach to get it done is the one taken by this MA judge. The courts need to find that, after Bruen, the “Right to Bear Arms” has been found to be an individual Constitutional Right. A Right that is elevated to such a level of importance that it cannot be set aside by simply crossing a State Line.
After all, a hunting or fishing license, issued by one State, would not be respected by any other State. It is expected that hunting/fishing licenses convey a low-level privilege that is limited, in scope, to the boundaries of the issuing State. Unfortunately, in the past, Concealed Carry Permits have been grouped into this same “low-level local privilege” classification, similar to hunting and fishing licenses. To change this dynamic, we must get the courts to elevate a Concealed Carry Permit to universal legal status.
To use an example, a marriage is a binding legal contract between two people. A marriage does not dissolve just because one or both partners cross a state-line. Marriage is elevated to the level of being an important (and universal) legal construct. We must, based upon the Bruen Decision, elevate the Right to Bear Arms to also be an important and universal legal construct. We must get it found to be a fundamental Constitutional Right that does not dissolve just because one crosses a state-line.
Once we establish the legal concept that the Right to Bear Arms is individual, universal and persistent, then a Concealed Carry License becomes an important legal document, like a marriage license, that will then fall under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” and which must be universally recognized.
So, we don’t necessarily need a new Federal Law to achieve national reciprocity. We just need the courts to accept that the 2nd Amendment makes the Right to Bear Arms a universal right that transcends state boundaries. Then a concealed carry license becomes an important legal document akin to a marriage license or an adoption decree.
@TN_MAN: First, in the words of Seth Godin, “The devil doesn’t need an advocate. The brave need supporters, not critics.” 😉
Second, the “Right to keep and bear Arms” is protected in the U.S. Constitution, and every State Constitution I’ve looked has some provision listing it as a Right within that State’s boundaries. Marriage is not listed in the U.S. Constitution (or to my knowledge, any State Constitution), nor is operating a motor vehicle on public roads, nor is adopting another human being as a legal child.
We can make a 9th Amendment claim for any/all of these, but it doesn’t change that none of them are specifically enumerated, yet all 50 States recognize them. (Hunting licenses aren’t, but that can be explained by each State having the authority to manage its lands and natural resources, which does not and cannot affect another State’s lands or resources. And most if not all States do offer non-resident hunting licenses.) In contrast, RKBA is specifically enumerated and protected, and therefore any license or document in favor of it should already be “elevated” to nation-wide/universal status.
Looking at it from the other direction, if a person commits a crime that bars him/her from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. 922, that prohibition is applied nation-wide regardless of where the crime took place. Logically, if the prohibition is recognized nation-wide, then the right should be equally recognized nation-wide. (Note: I’m not saying it’s right that we strip RKBA from anyone, but it is the current system we have to deal with.)
But where I think we agree is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. You described the legal system as it currently exists (e.g. important “universal” legal documents vs. lower-level “privileges”), and I described a bunch of “shoulds” (e.g. documents which support RKBA “should” already be recognized nation-wide). The question is, how do we get from here (as it currently is) to there (as it “should” be)?
And the answer to that is, just like this MA Judge did: by recognizing that a U.S.-Constitutionally-protected Right — including the Right to keep and bear Arms — transcends State boundaries, and the individual States do not have the authority to limit the exercise based on which jurisdiction a citizen hails from. We wouldn’t accept that an out-of-state resident doesn’t have the right to attend church, or speak freely, or be secure against unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures, etc.; any more than we would accept that someone’s marriage certificate or driver’s license is “no good” in another State unless that State specifically says so through legislation. Ergo, the notion that RKBA or any other enumerated Right ends at any State border should (there’s that word again) be equally unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution.
An equally powerful approach would be to bring what is often referred to as the “interstate commerce clause”. which clearly prohibits any actions that limit”trade amongst the several states”/ It seems anyone travelling from one state into another has at leas SOME hint of ‘trade”. If nothing else, when you drive across one of those imaginary lines on the dirt to leave ine state and enter another, you are using an expensive piece of machinery (car, perhaps bicycle, train, etc) and using sie form of energy to make that thing move. thus you are using SOMETHING physical to phsyclly move between ine state and another. This is prot4ected under that cOmmerce Clause.
If Mr.Filburn, back in 1936 or whenever, got whacked hard for growing what in his own dirt for the sole and express purpse of feeding his own family, the court “determining” that if he had NOT done so someone else in another state could have grown that same wheat and transported it between states to end up in the Filburn family supper table, then the carrying of a firearm from one state into another is equally governed, and thus permissible.
I firmly believe that court got it wrong, but it remains binding as a decision. The underlying principle that no state can do anything to liit orresrict trade amngst the several states wouldstill prohibit Mass from denying the validity of this duly acquired Mother May I Card from New Hampshire.
Frankly, it’s rather absurd that this level of common sense is not the standard practice. Thank you, judge Coffey
Finally, a judge has stated the obvious. The Emperor has no clothes.
Well, it’s about time!!!
It will be fun to hear the Left wailing and gnashing teeth.
Why has that never dawned on me before?
You keep all of your Constitutional rights crossing state borders except for the 2nd Amendment.
AD
Mas, please pardon my rant here. 🙂 I know many people will disagree with my opinions here but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Glad to see a State Court Judge FINALLY uphold the 2nd and 14th Amendment PROTECTIONS of a U.S. citizen.
Let’s review class…
The “Bill of Rights” are prohibitions. They are not “rights” granted to the people by the federal government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were drafted by the individual states to tell the federal government explicitly what they could NOT do to the citizens of the individual states.
The Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever. But the anti-gun zealots don’t want you to know that.
The anti-gun zealots want you to believe that it is the Second Amendment that gives law-abiding Americans the right to keep and bear arms, and that the government can simply take that right away whenever they want. Well that of course, is BS.
Again, the Second Amendment was written by the individual states to tell the new federal government that it could NOT infringe upon the natural right of the people of the individual states to keep and bear arms, by PROHIBITING the federal government from having ANY legal jurisdiction over firearms in the U.S. PERIOD.
Every single federal firearms law ever written is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Does the federal government exercise jurisdiction over firearms in the U.S.? Yes they do and, but they do so ILLEGALLY. How do they get away with it? Because no State or Federal Court, or the Supreme Court of the United States yet… will do what is necessary to stop them.
Conversely, the 14th Amendment was written by the federal government to tell the states what THEY could NOT do to U.S. citizens.
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This means that NO state can ‘enact or enforce’ ANY law that abridges the privileges and immunities (i.e., 2nd Amendment) of citizens of the United States.
Therefore, every single state gun law ever written is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
And it looks like this Massachusetts State Judge John Coffey FINALLY is a Judge that recognizes that under the 14th Amendment, it is illegal for states to violate the 2nd Amendment of U.S. citizens in every state.
That is all.
I for one don’t disagree.
Neither does SCOTUS, for that matter. See: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which explicitly says that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the States via the 14th Amendment, and therefore enforceable against the States. Chicago’s argument was that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the federal government from limiting gun rights, and the individual States can do whatever they want; they cited several late-19th-century SCOTUS opinions to that effect.
SCOTUS set them straight and overturned those previous (and terrible, IMO) opinions.
Mass. Judge John Coffey’s opinion is refreshing, certainly, if for no other reason than because a Blue-State judge followed SCOTUS’ direction and got it exactly right.
Exactly.
Pure and simple excellence.
Hey Mas, how about putting these talks on here with captions for us older DEAF shooters.
Without it, all we get is watching some voiceless flapping jaws to look at.
George, click on the CC button on lower right of screen, the closed caption text will come up and you can read it.
The vast majority of “Closed-Captions” are transliterations made by “Artificial Intelligence” {transcribers} and are subject to substantial errors of translation wherein words of opposite meaning are substituted because the speaker had insufficiently enunciated a phoneme such as “un” which precedes the alternative {unintended meaning} word “constitutional”;
Critical reading and interpretation [by the auditory impaired] of the CC are necessary to compare the translation with the “lip-reading” of the video of the speaker’s facial and lip movements.
Dennis,
Thanks. In other words, we can’t trust machines. “To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.” I think I heard that in the 1970s.
I always enjoy Mark’s commentary and find it to be more on point, factual and less hyperbolic than some of the other commentary out there on firearms law. Another person I enjoy and find useful is William Kirk on the YouTube channel Washington Gun Law.
When I heard about this judge’s ruling in Massachusetts, my reaction was kind of a “Why didn’t I think about that?” The logic and reasoning of it is straightforward and rather simple, isn’t it? I hope this line of thinking is expanded and becomes the foundation for dismantling a lot of reciprocity issues. Wonder if the Commonwealth will appeal or simply let the ruling stand so it only applies to this one defendant?
Bill Kirk is exceellent. He is VERY strong on Washington Law but much weaker in other states (even Oregon) and Fedral law. He readil admits this.
I had the priviledge of attending a live session with him just a week ago.
He did not discuss this Massachussetts case, as he was focussing on informing us of the details of Washington gun laws, both legislative and case law. Definitely worth following him.
Another case of the poor treatment of the 2nd A. I’m glad that I lived long enough to see a MA judge realize that.
As CBT noted above: “Its about time!”
In the Bruen Decision, Justice Thomas wrote: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion).”
However, for the last century or so, it has been even worse than ‘2nd Class’ treatment. The Federal Government, the States, and the courts have treated the right to bear arms as a low-level privilege. In Blue States, it has even been treated as a disfavored low-level privilege. One that ranks far, far, far, below the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.
Considered this thought experiment: Suppose I am a TN resident but that I have friends or family members living in some Blue State that hates firearms (California, NY, New Jersey, etc.). Now suppose that I fly to that Blue State to visit these people.
While I am there, a family member loans me a motor vehicle to use for local travel. Further suppose that I am stopped by the police who request to see my driving license. I produce my TN license. It is checked and found to be in order. There is no problem (with the license anyway) since my TN license is accepted in ALL 50 States.
Now, suppose this same case EXCEPT instead of loaning me a motor vehicle, a family member loans me a snub-nose 38 special revolver (with ammo and pocket holster) to use for personal protection. Again, I am stopped by the police who find that I am armed. They want to see my carry permit and I produce my TN handgun carry license. Despite it being in good order (in TN), the police are likely to arrest me, confiscate the firearm and (depending upon the State), I may well be facing felony charges!
Clearly, the “Right” to bear arms is being ranked lower (much lower) than the privilege to operate a motor vehicle.
Even in my home State of TN, this is true. In TN, both driving and Handgun Carry licenses are issued by the TN Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security. Therefore, they are often dated to expire together.
Both of my licenses were set to expire in May of 2020, so, in March of 2020, I went to a local TN DOSHS office to renew them. Covid-19 was just ramping up but I was able to put in my renewal requests before everything shut down. I, literally, put in the paperwork to renew both licenses on the same day and during the same hour.
The result? Within 10 days the TN DOSHS had mailed me my new drivers license. It took them 6 weeks to get me a renewed Handgun Carry Permit. Clearly, in terms of priority, even the “Gun Friendly” State of Tennessee was treating the administration of drivers licenses (a privilege license) as a higher “priority” than the administration of carry permits which are a Constitutional Right. Second class right? Or low level privilege?
Every out-of-state resident who was ever charged with a felony for carrying a firearm without a license, in MA, should immediately appeal (if previously convicted) or make a motion to have pending charges dismissed based upon this judge’s ruling. The American Left will continue to treat the Right to Bear Arms as a low level privilege (a disfavored one, at that) until we hold their feet to the Bruen fire!
Clearly, in terms of priority, even the “Gun Friendly” State of Tennessee was treating the administration of drivers licenses (a privilege license) as a higher “priority” than the administration of carry permits which are a Constitutional Right. Second class right?
I wouldn’t read too much into it. If Tennessee CCW laws are anything like Oregon’s (the state I’m familiar with), the issuing agency has more back-end checking to do with CCW renewals than with DL renewals.
In OR, they don’t need to run your name and fingerprints through the FBI or NICS for the DL, but by law, they do for the CHLs (Concealed Handgun Licenses). They don’t have a choice; the CHL issuance/renewal statute says they must (the statute says “shall”) run applications and renewals through the same state and federal background checks.
With COVID ramping up in 2020, the FBI was locking down just as hard as anywhere else, so CHL renewals that require their approval were taking longer than normal. It’s nice to hear TN’s DL renewals were going relatively normally — OR’s DMV was locked down like crazy, to the point that the State issued a directive that police state-wide should be lenient with expired licenses and tags because renewals were taking so damn long.
OTOH, if TN does NOT require FBI/NICS approval for CCW renewals, then I’d be suspicious. You’d probably know better than I whether that’s the case.
Archer – “if TN does NOT require FBI/NICS approval for CCW renewals, then I’d be suspicious.”
When one first applies for a carry permit (especially an enhanced one), there are a bunch of hoops to jump through. These include fees, training classes, finger-printing, being photographed, in-depth background check, etc..
However, the hoops are reduced when one just renews an existing permit. Basically one:
1) Pays a renewal fee
2) Fills out a form: (From TCA: “The renewal application shall be on a standard form developed by the department of safety and shall require the applicant to disclose, under oath, the information concerning the applicant as set forth in subsection (c), and shall require the applicant to certify that the applicant still satisfies all the eligibility requirements of this section for the issuance of a permit.”)
3) Your photographs may be updated.
4) I assume some sort of reduced background check is performed. You do not have to resubmit your fingerprints. I assume that they would simply run your name to search for outstanding warrants. Maybe a quick NCIS check, similar to that used when purchasing a firearm, would also be run.
However, the TN DOSHS processes far, far more drivers license applications than handgun permits. I cannot believe that handgun permits take more effort or manpower. What I suspect is that the manpower resources devoted to processing drivers license applications far exceed those devoted to processing handgun permits.
If so, then this resource allocation is, itself, a statement on the higher priority of drivers licenses versus handgun permits from the point of view of the Tennessee State Government.
the issuing agency has more back-end checking to do with CCW renewals than with DL renewals.
In OR, they don’t need to run your name and fingerprints through the FBI or NICS for the DL, but by law, they do for the CHL
and my serious response to this sad FACT is WHY? If such behaviour does not clearly indicate a lesser status is atributed to the Mother May I Card, what could? Yes, for first issue of the Card, but for renewals? WHY? We all know if we ever “do a bad” that would disqualify us for possession of arms, the stete of residence will often get that news long before anyone else. hey LOVE to find “cause” to take one’s guns away, and this wold do it. Anything that would disqualify my renewal of my Mother May I Card would also disarm me, and tbey’d have nipped round to take up my guns long before that Card would need renewal. This is smokescreen.
On a side note, here is another judicial decision that is positive for 2nd Amendment Rights. See this news story:
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/08/31/federal-judge-grants-class-action-status-to-lawsuit-challenging-handgun-ban-for-young-adults-n74368
I’m glad to see they’re getting this one right, too. Lawsuits usually move so slowly, the plaintiff is 21 before it’s resolved, at which point they CAN buy whatever gun they want, so an age-based “as-applied” lawsuit is declared moot. That the plaintiff had to wait three years before being “allowed” to exercise his/her rights, never seemed to matter.
But as we all know, “A right delayed is a right denied.” Upon reaching age 18, the age of majority, a citizen should enjoy full recognition of ALL his/her rights. (Put another way, if you can enlist in the military and give your life for your country, vote in elections, and sign your own contracts, you should be able to own whatever gun you want.)
Good to see courts finally understanding that and allowing a prima facie challenge go forward.
(As an aside, I’m surprised nobody tried a class action on this before [AFAIK], with a rotating list of “class” plaintiffs who are perpetually in the 18-20 age range. It has always been individual challenges, which get mooted the second they turn 21.)
“Powerful language by judge Coffey”
More powerful than the legal implications of “…SHALL NOT be infringed”???
So much for ‘powerful language’.
Words only carry so much weight in this. When the law and their attendant nterpretations are bastardized to fit an agenda by evildoers, words are wasted by those abiding illegitimate constructs skewed against them. I keep wondering how much longer words will carry the day. If, in fact, they are even now. What else remains hidden behind the curtain?
You mean a blue state judge made a correct ruling on a Second Amendment case? My! My! There must be a hockey game being played in Hell!
I would like to expand, a bit more, on my thoughts on the legal aspects of the Right to Bear Arms.
IANAL, but it seems to me that legal documents, licenses, and permits fall (generally) into one of two categories:
1) In-State Legal Document – Legal documents that are expected to have force only within the boundaries of the issuing State.
2) Interstate Legal Documents – Legal documents that are not geographically limited and which do have legal force across state lines.
The Constitution includes a “Full Faith and Credit” clause that covers interstate acceptance of legal documents. However, the law is practical. If a document is a limited (In-State) document, then the above clause is not expected to apply. Logically, the above clause can only apply to documents that function as interstate legal documents.
There are many licenses that fall into the “In-State” category. For example, one State cannot engage in wildlife management on lands controlled by another State. So, hunting and fishing licenses fall into the In-State category. Many professional licenses (realtor, contractor, barber, etc.) also fall into the In-State category. Before I retired, I was registered as a Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Tennessee. I was authorized to provide engineering services and to seal engineering documents in TN. However, my authority expired at the State line. If I had wished to also practice engineer in other States, I would have had to register as a PE in those States. My TN PE license was not recognized by any other State.
However, there are many documents and licenses that fall into the interstate category. A marriage license, for example, is expected to carry force across state lines. One cannot divorce one’s spouse by simply fleeing across a state line! 🙂
There is also an interstate highway system and motor vehicles routinely operate across state lines. Therefore, a driver’s license also falls into the interstate category.
There is a dispute, among the States, as to which category concealed carry permits fall. Some States (Arizona, New Hampshire, Tennessee, etc.) will honor a carry permit issued by any other State. These States also enter into agreements, with other States, to try to get them to honor their carry permits. Clearly, the above States place carry permits into the Interstate category.
Other States (California, New Jersey, New York, etc.) refuse to honor carry permits from any other State. Clearly, they wish for carry permits to be placed (legally) into the In-state category. They do not consider that a carry permit has ANY AUTHORITY beyond the boundaries of the issuing State.
The task, therefore, of the 2A Community, is to get carry permits recognized as Interstate Legal Documents. Recent Supreme Court Decisions have established that:
a) The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right.
b) It is related to the Natural Right of Self-Defense.
c) It includes the Right to Bear Arms outside of the home (Bruen).
This MA judges decision now says that the Right to Bear Arms extends across State lines. He is saying, effectively, that carry permits are interstate legal documents.
If we can get the Supreme Court to confirm this reasoning, then National Concealed Carry is a “Done Deal”.
Can we get there? I think so. It may take years of court decisions but given that:
I) The 2nd and 14th Amendments are national in scope.
II) Crime occurs in all States, hence, the need for self-defense is not limited by State boundaries.
III) If carry permits are declared interstate legal documents, then the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will kick in to force acceptance nationwide.
The Left has blocked National Concealed Carry on the Federal Level for years. However, if we play our card right, we can effectively achieve it by way of the courts rather than Congress. This MA judge is showing us the way forward toward National Concealed Carry!
the entire concept of a Mother May I Card to acquire purchase, carry, or use a firearm is a false construct.We HAVE the right. ANyYrestriction or regulation or licensing orpermitting violates the cncept of right”. Yes, I have to register to vote, but that request canno be denied exceptin few circumstances.. felon, for example, or mentally incompetent. From whence comes this entire business of “permits” to exercise that right to arms? Go ask Tim Sullivan, former rotten politiician in New York. HE invent4ed the whole concept.
@ Tionico – “the entire concept of a Mother May I Card to acquire purchase, carry, or use a firearm is a false construct.”
I understand this viewpoint. It is a right-wing viewpoint. People on the Right tend to view environmental influences (firearms, drugs, alcohol, poverty, poor education, etc.) as “aggravating factors” in negative human behavior. For example, a firearm acts as a force multiplier. Therefore, a violent person armed with a firearm can (potentially) do more harm than one who is unarmed.
Leftists, however, have a “Blank Slate” view of humanity. They view humans as puppets who only dance to environmental factors and who have no freewill of their own. Therefore, they view environmental influences as “Causal Factors” rather than as “Aggravating Factors”.
This is a significant worldview shift. It is the reason that leftists blame the object, rather than the person, for evil. It is the reason that left-wing politicians continue to push for prohibition polices. Prohibition is, purely, a left-wing concept. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Right supports prohibition.
Indeed, after the failure of alcohol prohibition, the American Left projected their own failure onto the Right and claimed that alcohol prohibition was a right-wing failure. This is a lie or, at best, a half-truth.
The American Right did, indeed, start the movement against alcohol. However, it started as a right-wing “Temperance” Movement. The emphasis was on self-control to abstain from alcohol. The American Left eventually co-opted the movement and took it over. In the hands of the Left, it morphed from a “Temperance Movement” into a movement for the “Prohibition of Alcohol”.
Make no mistake. All (and I do mean ALL) prohibition movements are left-wing in nature and in ideology. It is an oxymoron to speak of a Right-Wing Prohibition Movement with respect to banning an environment influence. (Abortion is different since it is an ACT – Medical Procedure – to be regulated rather than an environmental influence to be banned.)
Getting back to my point, about half of the population leans toward the Left-Wing Worldview. Therefore, about half of the population places the blame for violence upon the tool rather than the person. With such a significant portion of the population having attitudes that range from distrust of firearms to outright hatred of firearms (Hoplophobia), one is likely to never have the political support to take the 2nd Amendment at face value. We are likely to never get “Constitutional Carry” nationwide as a matter of realpolitik.
Therefore, the “Mother May I Card” is a fact of life even if it the concept of it is repugnant to a direct reading of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, as a practical matter, out best efforts probably lie in:
1) Getting Constitution Carry installed in as many States as possible.
2) Getting Carry Permits accepted as Interstate Documents so as to achieve National Concealed Carry.
Given the prevalence of the left-wing mindset in the population, we will never get the 2nd Amendment taken at its “bare face” (literal) value. The SCOTUS has always considered that the Rights listed under the Bill of Rights are not unlimited. The American Left will always fight for limits on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If the Left had their way, they would gut the 2A and make it a “Dead Letter of the Law”.
Given the unrealistic views of the Left, it is a continual fight just to get our 2A rights acknowledged and honored at all. A total 2A victory is a “Blue Sky” goal.
Can’t we just saddle one if those red ‘therapy pet’ vests over the slide of a pistol and bring it anywhere?
That trick seems to work in any circumstance.
“Can’t we just saddle one if those red ‘therapy pet’ vests over the slide of a pistol and bring it anywhere?”
Even better, we could take a page from the Movie ‘Red’ and carry “The Pig”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXHdqulNiBs
Quote of the Day:
“Peace through Superior Firepower” – Roman Emperor Hadrian
The real issue is how the narrative has been turned around since the 1960s. Very slowly, the Left has been able to argue about “common sense” even though it was “common sense” that self defense was a basic human right recognized under English Common Law. Our founding fathers didn’t argue vociferously enough about rights because, at the time, everyone understood that we were allowed to defend ourselves and then needed to remind the government that they couldn’t infringe our access to weapons. Gun restrictions prospered during Jim Crow, and Northern cities made a lot of hay with “Saturday Night Special” laws, all of which were designed to prevent marginalized committees from defending themselves. When gun-grabbers refer to historical precedent, they often have to call back those racist rules. There was an implicit understanding 100 years ago that self-defense with the best tool available was a right. David Harsanyi wrote a good little text about this several years ago.
Comments are closed.