I think anything the fed tried to impose would end up being an infringement and get shot down by the courts. They aren't trying to make any laws regarding weapons themselves, just forcing states to recognize each others licenses like they do with driver's licenses. If the fed put restrictions or requirements on the driver's licenses I am unaware of them.EconDoc wrote:It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?
We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.
I thought I posted something earlier this morning in this thread from my phone, but I guess it didn't make it through. I had mused that we always seem to like it when a state has pre-emption, but now that the fed is trying to have pre-emption we're a bit skeptical. I understand why, but this still seems like a good thing to me.