I appreciate the passion, but this is not a good legal strategy. You would be giving the left a golden opportunity to file a case in a cherry-picked court, whereupon said court would write an opinion declaring that the 2A doesn't confer a right to carry a weapon, only to keep one in your home. And that would be the law of the land, unless or until a superior court overturned it.
And yes, I understand that wouldn't alter already existing state law that recognizes the opposite, but it would still be a loss for our side, still creates an unnecessary legal precedent, not to mention the spectre of this fraud SC actually taking the case on appeal and deciding the original judge was right.
That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.
I appreciate the passion, but this is not a good legal strategy. You would be giving the left a golden opportunity to file a case in a cherry-picked court, whereupon said court would write an opinion declaring that the 2A doesn't confer a right to carry a weapon, only to keep one in your home. And that would be the law of the land, unless or until a superior court overturned it.
And yes, I understand that wouldn't alter already existing state law that recognizes the opposite, but it would still be a loss for our side, still creates an unnecessary legal precedent, not to mention the spectre of this fraud SC actually taking the case on appeal and deciding the original judge was right.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". I can keep them and I can BEAR them. Bearing arms means having arms with you.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" how could it not be any clearer?
Stop believing that our opponents care what the law says. They do not.
That's easily avoided by mandating reciprocity for state-issued licenses to carry (and not creating a federal permit).
Mandatory reciprocity for out-of-state gun permits is analogous to mandatory reciprocity for out-of-state marriages.
That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.