Wyoming "Constitutional Carry" Unconstitutional?

[IronSight]

You're getting hung up on labels. You need to look at the actual mechanism:

1) The USSC has found that a state can set requirements for carrying of firearms, including CCW permit processes.

2) They have not found against Michigan's refusal to accept nonresident (third-state) CCW. They have not found against California's refusal to accept any out-of-state CCW. They have not found against reciprocity agreements of the various states. In each case, it is a restriction set by one state against residents of another state. Unless and until the USSC finds against it, it is within the bounds of the Constitution, even though it gives or denies privileges based on where someone lives.

3) The Wyoming law is a "paperless" CCW permit for those who have been Wyoming residents for a certain length of time.

4) Persons moving to Wyoming from certain states are granted reciprocity privileges, thus able to CCW prior to fulfilling the residency time requirement. Persons moving from other states are not granted reciprocity, and must prove residency for the specified amount of time.

I just don't see where there's an unconstitutionality in there anywhere.

I'm happy for any step in the right direction, and won't look a gift horse in the mouth. Once Wyoming is satisfied that this step WAS in the right direction, we can get them to take another step. Unless whimpering and whining makes them think that there's no way to make us happy, so why bother trying . . ?

But, hey, what do _I_ know, I'm just the guy who got CCW for Arizona gunowners. If I had made a stink over the differences between the law that I wrote and the law that they initially passed, the Land of AZ wouldn't have Constitutional Carry today.

1) No it hasn't; it has said that the right is not unlimited, but it has not upheld licensing in any way as it has not even ruled on licensing. Go ahead, cite the imaginary Supreme Court case you think exists.

2) None of those are durational residency requirementsm

3 & 4) That penalty on new residents from only certain states is exactly what a durational residency requirement is. If you can't understand why that's unconstitutional, then I have my doubts you've even bothered to try and comprehend the issue whatsoever.

Furthermoe, pointing out flaws in otherwise good legislation, and reaching out to officials in the State to start the path to fixing those flaws, does not constitute "whimpering and whining".

Frankly, you're the one who seems to be whining about an issue you seem incapable of understanding. So let's cut the crap shall we; I challenge you again to cite a singular court case from the USSC supporting any point you've made in this thread.

[GL23]

Just because a state does make different requirements, it doesn't mean it isn't in violation of the US Constitution. Read Article IV Section 2 and Amendment XIV Section 1 of the Constitution

And the courts will decide if the different requirements violate the Constitution when an actual attorney articulates this in a case. There is case law supporting both sides of the legality regarding durational residency requirements for many different things. Some are allowed and some have been struck down.

It is in no way automatically "no" when a state creates durational residency requirements.

[DVC]

1) No it hasn't; it has said that the right is not unlimited, but it has not upheld licensing in any way as it has not even ruled on licensing. Go ahead, cite the imaginary Supreme Court case you think exists.

Sorry, it works the other way around. Until the Supremes rule against it, existing law stands. That's why the Heller Decision had to be followed up by McDonald.

2) None of those are durational residency requirementsm

Sorry, you're wrong. But thanks for playing.

3 & 4) That penalty on new residents from only certain states is exactly what a durational residency requirement is. If you can't understand why that's unconstitutional, then I have my doubts you've even bothered to try and comprehend the issue whatsoever.

I give up. You are either incapable of understanding, or intentionally refusing to do so, and I have better things to do with my time than play games.

Have a nice day.

[IronSight]

Sorry, it works the other way around. Until the Supremes rule against it, existing law stands. That's why the Heller Decision had to be followed up by McDonald.



Sorry, you're wrong. But thanks for playing.



I give up. You are either incapable of understanding, or intentionally refusing to do so, and I have better things to do with my time than play games.

Have a nice day.

Go ahead and show me where I didn't say existing law stands until struck down by a court, I'll wait. That's yet another logical fallacy on your part, how about actually addressing that point and reinforcing your comment on what "the supremes" have ruled with a single case.

I love how you're the one failing to cite imaginary court cases, simply talking about the "supremes", failing in any way to actually discuss durational residency requirements and refusing to drop straw-men arguments, and yet you somehow insist that I'm the one wrong here.

So, thanks for playing, but I think it's patently obvious that you're the one playing "games".

[IronSight]

And the courts will decide if the different requirements violate the Constitution when an actual attorney articulates this in a case. There is case law supporting both sides of the legality regarding durational residency requirements for many different things. Some are allowed and some have been struck down.

It is in no way automatically "no" when a state creates durational residency requirements.

Care to cite any of that case law that supposedly exists to support a durational residency requirement imposed on a fundamental right?

I haven't seen a single durational residency requirement upheld by the USSC.

Before you respond, please make sure you aren't making the same mistake that DVC has by confusing requirements on non-residents as being the same as requirements on residents. A durational residency requirement, by defualt, is imposed on residents, non-resident issues are a completely separate issue. DVC can't seem to understand the difference, I hope you do.

ETA: I'll go ahead and toss out the fact the michigan's refusal to accept non-resident licenses/permits could impose a penalty on potential residents from restrictive States, however penalties on potential residents are a different issue that penalties on residents based on what State they're from. California's refusal to accept any other States' licenses/permits is yet again not the same as penalties on new California residents.

[IronSight]

I'm still waiting for everyone else to bring forth those court cases they insist exist.

[knight0334]

And the courts will decide if the different requirements violate the Constitution when an actual attorney articulates this in a case. There is case law supporting both sides of the legality regarding durational residency requirements for many different things. Some are allowed and some have been struck down.

It is in no way automatically "no" when a state creates durational residency requirements.

But SCOTUS has already ruled that Keeping and Bearing is a fundamental right, see Heller and McDonald cases. SCOTUS has also ruled a few times in the past that fundamental rights are subject to Article IV Section 2 and the 14th Amendment regardless of residency.

[GL23]

But SCOTUS has already ruled that Keeping and Bearing is a fundamental right, see Heller and McDonald cases. SCOTUS has also ruled a few times in the past that fundamental rights are subject to Article IV Section 2 and the 14th Amendment regardless of residency.

They have also ruled some fundamental rights are allowed to have durational residency requirements. Like I said before, it is not an automatic "no" when a state attaches a durational residency requirement to a fundamental right.

[IronSight]

They have also ruled some fundamental rights are allowed to have durational residency requirements. Like I said before, it is not an automatic "no" when a state attaches a durational residency requirement to a fundamental right.

Care to actually provide a citation for that statement, as I've repeatedly requested.

ETA: Here's a starting point for cases on the right-to-travel. Take note that some of these deal with issues that are not durational residency requirements. Maybe some of those, however, will spark a memory of these rulings you and DVC like to mention but not reference.

http://supreme.justia.com/constituti...to-travel.html

[A. Bouchard]

Can the residents of Pennslvania carrry concealed w/o a permit?

I too would rather have "no" restrictions to non-residents, however understand this legislation had technical hurdles that we had to deal with.

When you introduce legislation, the very nature of the anti-gunners is to use it for a "vehicle" to undermine the original intent. That said, restoring WY resident's rights is entirely different than non-resident carry and this is defined in a section we were trying to stay away from. (when you open statute to debate on the floor don't be suprised when those rules get changed too)

In more straight forward terms, we had to add a qualifier to the WY statute pertaining to carry permits, by contrast to change the permit requirements (residency) would be better handled in its own bill.

Everything we do as Wyoming's only "no compromise" gun rights organization is for "policy shift" that aligns with unfettered second amendment rights.

For instance last year using the WY Firearms Freedom Act, we upped the WY state preemption. Starting on page 8, changes in RED.

6-8-401. Firearm, weapon and ammunition regulation
and prohibition by state.
(a) The Wyoming legislature finds that the right to
keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The Wyoming
legislature affirms this right as a constitutionally
protected right in every part of Wyoming.

(c) The sale, transfer, purchase, delivery,
taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage,
use and possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition
shall be authorized, regulated and prohibited by the state,
and regulation thereof is preempted by the state. Except as
authorized by W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), no city, town, or
county, political subdivision or any other entity shall
authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer,
purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership,
transportation, storage, use, carrying or possession of
firearms, weapons, and accessories, components orammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Enroll/HB0095.pdf

Please understand that we were laying the groundwork with good policy. As a matter of fact it was section 6-8-401 (a) that was read on the floor by our bill sponsors during opening comments for constitutional carry.

Another hurdle that has gone widely un-noticed is Wyoming's legislation did not include an "inform and disarm" clause like Alaska and Arizona. So in that instance we are more similar to Vermont. My members did not want a new statute that undermined the fourth amendment protections that they enjoy.
http://youtu.be/swV_eOrAp9Y

WyGO - Wyoming Gun Owners is a new group and we are 2 for 2 on legislation that we brought to the table. So please celebrate with us and more importantly join and support us financially, so we can win in our common goals.

Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
WyGO - Wyoming Gun Owners
http://wyominggunowners.org/