Constitutional Carry vs Gun Free School Zone act

[Koda94]

The best short-term solution seems to be what every state that has eliminated concealed carry permits has done -- continue to issue permits, but make them optional. Are you saying that your state (or some other state) is considering permitless concealed carry without the option of obtaining a permit?

I guess I didnt realise the states adopting Constitutional Carry are also issuing permits optionally. Is Vermont the only state that isnt offering an optional permit? I find it odd.... Im curious now is the GFSZA the reason states that allow Constitutional Carry also offer optional carry permits/licenses?

My state is not considering it but the reason im curious is occasionally the subject comes up where people support it often dont understand the GCSZA or even know about it.






DonP, because having to ask for a permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional.

 

[Tom Servo]

DonP, because having to ask for a permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional.

The problem is, many state constitutions disagree with that, as do numerous court precedents.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I guess I didnt realise the states adopting Constitutional Carry are also issuing permits optionally. Is Vermont the only state that isnt offering an optional permit? I find it odd.... Im curious now is the GFSZA the reason states that allow Constitutional Carry also offer optional carry permits/licenses?

As far as I know, Vermont is the only state that doesn't offer any provision whatsoever for a firearms carry license/permit. So far, all the states that have adopted permitless concealed carry have retained the option to obtain a permit.

I believe the primary reason why permitless carry states retain the option to get a permit is for reciprocity, and to satisfy states that require a home state permit in order to issue a non-resident permit.

DonP, because having to ask for a permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional.

See post #7.

 

[carguychris]

IMHO (and IANAL), laws allowing permitless open carry but requiring a permit for concealed carry are constitutional. Of course, it could go the other way -- a state could require a permit for open carry but allow permitless concealed carry.

TX is most likely going to take a different path - the same permit requirement for both (or either, depending how you look at it). As I write this, it seems very likely that a handgun licensing reform measure will be passed that will simply strike the word "Concealed" wherever it appears in current law concerning the CHL program.

DonP, because having to ask for a permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional.

The problem is, many state constitutions disagree with that, as do numerous court precedents.

FWIW the TX Constitution explicitly gives the Legislature the power to regulate carry "with a view to prevent crime."

 

[steve4102]

The original GFSZA was ruled Unconstitutional in US v Lopez.

It is my understanding that the "reason" it was Unconstitutional was it lacked the magic words, "interstate Commerce" and the interstate commerce clause.

It has since been amended to include the missing magic language and signed into law.

My question is, if the SC ruled it Unconstitutional, does the same court have to rule/agree on the Amended Law and it's "new" language, or does this new and improved version have to work it way from the bottom to the top all over again?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

FWIW the TX Constitution explicitly gives the Legislature the power to regulate carry "with a view to prevent crime."

The legislature has the authority to "regulate" carry, but not to prohibit carry. That's the crux of previous state high court decisions in such states as Ohio and Idaho. It should be even more so now that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is binding on the states.

In short: The Constitution says we have a "right" to bear arms. That's what the Ohio state constitution says, as well. But a decade or so ago, Ohio didn't allow carry. A case made it to the Ohio supreme court, and they ruled that the legislature has no authority to override a provision of the state's constitution. They have the authority to "regulate" the mode of carry, but not to prohibit carry. Therefore, since the legislature had prohibited concealed carry and had no permit/license scheme in effect, the result was that open carrry was legal -- without a permit.

This upset the bed wetters sufficiently that the legislature enacted a concealed carry permit system so the pantywaists wouldn't have to see all those scary guns being carried openly.

If Texas is going to require a permit for either open or concealed carry (or both), IMHO that's contrary to the constitution, because someone who can't afford the permit (and the process leading to it) is effectively prohibited from carrying and thus is deprived of a constitutional right.