How close to a national CCW law?


PDA






Tman
May 30, 2005, 01:31 PM
I went to packing.org to see how many states my Texas CHL will be honored. Including Texas, I can carry a weapon in 25 states, thats half the country. There are also a number of states which Texas will recognize but don't yet have reciprocity but that might? come soon. Some people have obtained an outstate/non-resident CCW license and could carry in even more states (ie. Florida and NH non-resident licenses). Would this be the closest we get to a national CCW law?

If you enjoyed reading about "How close to a national CCW law?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hypnogator
May 30, 2005, 03:09 PM
A federal "national CCW" law, while beneficial, would infringe on states rights.

However, a federal mandate that states recognize each other's CC permits or lose all federal law enforcement assistance funds would not be. It wouldn't force the dwindling number of states that don't permit concealed weapons under any circumstances to change their laws, but it would mean that each state would be required to give full faith and credit to the actions of the other states in granting concealed weapons permits.

I don't see either happening soon, but, unlike some here on THR, I view the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004 as the camel's nose under the tent. As soon as it can be shown that all of the dire predictions about us out-of-state and retired cops causing mayhem and endangering the public are just not happening, the credibility of similar arguments against CCW reciprocity will be all but eliminated.

Just my $.02 worth.

RevDisk
May 30, 2005, 03:35 PM
No offense, but I'm not really for a national CCW. PA's CCW laws are rather nice. Pay $19, fill out a form, you get a CCW. All burden of proof denying the permit is on the police, and after a certain length of time they must give it to you if they haven't found anything bad. It's good everywhere in the State, except in courtrooms, federal property and at schools.

I don't want manditory training requires, couple hundred dollar fees, "officer's discretion", etc etc. I like PA's system the way it is. Vermont style is, of course, better but PA's system isn't bad. Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. Oh well.

Bob
May 30, 2005, 03:35 PM
Boy, that would really be hard for our masters, er I mean officials, to swallow here in the beneificent PRK. I'm sure they'll honor it only if the perps, er I mean lawfully armed citizens have serialized ammo in those instruments of death, er I mean firearms.
Bob

nico
May 30, 2005, 03:41 PM
A federal "national CCW" law, while beneficial, would infringe on states rights.

However, a federal mandate that states recognize each other's CC permits or lose all federal law enforcement assistance funds would not be.
I've heard that stated several times and just don't understand the logic behind it. How is the fed. gov. telling the states that they can't violate the Second Amendment a state's rights issue but the fed. gov. telling them they can't violate the full faith and credit clause isn't?

I don't necessarily think a federal CCW law would be a good thing, as it could lead to the feds making laws more restrictive than they already are in a lot of states. But I don't see how the feds telling the states they have to abide by the Constitution is a violation of state's rights.

HighVelocity
May 30, 2005, 03:51 PM
Anything that will kick Nevada into line would be good. The honor no states permits but their own. :mad:

Steve in PA
May 30, 2005, 03:55 PM
"Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. "

Exactly. People complain abot how their drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. Well, thats because you don't just walk into your local DMV and walk out 15 minutes later with your DL. Every state has some kind of testing procedure in place. Plus most motor vehicle laws are the same no matter where you are.

Sure it would be nice to have a CCW that is recognized like your DL, but until they can have some type of minimum level of ability, there is not going to be a National CCW.

Cosmoline
May 30, 2005, 04:05 PM
The last thing we need is federal involvement in the CCW movement. It needs to stay at the state level. If the Feds got involved, that means the BATF would be involved. And of course the supremacy clause would allow any federal laws or BATF regs to trump state law. Imagine all of a sudden that your state provisions were replaced with a mandatory ID system, gun registration and licensing courtesy of your friends at the BATF.

I can do without that kind of "help."

RevDisk
May 30, 2005, 04:16 PM
Sure it would be nice to have a CCW that is recognized like your DL, but until they can have some type of minimum level of ability, there is not going to be a National CCW.

Yea well, I don't want there to be an arbitrary "minimum level of ability" for reasons Cosmoline just meantioned.

I'm happy with PA level standards. The PA Constitution makes Cali style CCW flat out illegal. Fees/taxes are legal, even if somewhat annoying. Denying lawful citizens their right to bear arms is illegal in PA. Our state Constitution and our state laws say this over and over.

PA Constitution (http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/pa_manual/section2/article_i.pdf)

Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Gray Peterson
May 30, 2005, 04:19 PM
I can do without that kind of "help."

Well if it wasn't for that kind of "help", you'd be arrested for merely transporting your handgun across New York State to VT or CT, even if it's in the trunk, locked, seperate from ammo.

Gray Peterson
May 30, 2005, 04:22 PM
National CCW...crappy.

National CCW Reciprocity, I whole heartedly support.

Go to Thomas and look up HR1243.

Igloodude
May 30, 2005, 04:40 PM
I think the states with extremely lenient CCW laws would end up getting rogered in the process of negotiating the national version - let's face it, most of them (Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, and which ones am I missing?) don't have much in the way of US House representation and I don't know that Texas and Florida could balance up against Cali, NY, NJ, and Mass.

Also, I would oppose it on state's rights grounds. The use of Federal tax revenue bribery/extortion on states to "encourage" the states to follow federally-pushed standards annoys me. :fire: Though if they're going to do it anyway, I'd of course prefer they do it for something I'm in favor of instead of something I oppose.

Gray Peterson
May 30, 2005, 04:44 PM
What about just CCW reciprocity between states being required under Article 4?

beerslurpy
May 30, 2005, 05:08 PM
A federal "national CCW" law, while beneficial, would infringe on states rights.

I beleive we fought a war over this one already, and your side of the argument lost. Although there was much chaos from the temporary freeing of the slaves, we did get some nifty amendments to the constitution.

Thanks to the post-war-of-northern-agression 14th amendment, states cannot infringe on the rights of their citizens.

The 2nd amendment enumerates a right to keep and bear arms. So, even though common sense tells us we have this right, the fact that it was placed in the Bill of Rights places it beyond doubt.

The more logical minded among you have no doubt guessed that this gives the federal government the authority to protect the rights of citizens from the infringement of the states.

A state has no more right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms than it has the ability to legalize slavery, outlaw political speech or quarter soldiers in my home.

jefnvk
May 30, 2005, 05:24 PM
Let them go. The states are moving towards that anyways, with the exception of the few that won't budge. I wouldn't be suprised if in the next few years, the states had it worked out that pretty much any permit worked in any states.

Don't start forcing laws on something that is working just to make it move faster. Chances are, you'll only make it worse.

beerslurpy
May 30, 2005, 05:25 PM
I actually agree with this, and favor letting the states make up their own mind.

It would help if the MSM wasnt working against us though.

P95Carry
May 30, 2005, 05:28 PM
jefnvk - count me in too on that thought. If the guys in MD - Spot77, Girlwithagun, and so many others fighting the cause - can eventually get it thru there too then there really is hope, so that over time (however frustratingly slow) things can gel into a national reciprocity.

Won't be easy - as much as anything due to different state's training requirements but - there is hope, as long as pressure is maintained by the good folks fighting.

Justin
May 30, 2005, 06:18 PM
The biggest problem with national CCW reciprocity is that it would force those states that allow concealed carry with no permit (Vermont, Alaska, and possibly in the near future, Wyoming) to toe the line with regard to what would most likely be federally mandated training, cost, and renewal requirements.

National CCW reciprocity is at odds with the goals of those states that see no need to either issue permits nor hamper those citizens who wish to exercise their right to carry a defensive firearm.

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 06:50 PM
I went to packing.org to see how many states my Texas CHL will be honored.
Did you notice that sometimes the reason that a state doesn't reciprocate is because they have open carry?

Hawkmoon
May 30, 2005, 07:01 PM
Exactly. People complain abot how their drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. Well, thats because you don't just walk into your local DMV and walk out 15 minutes later with your DL. Every state has some kind of testing procedure in place. Plus most motor vehicle laws are the same no matter where you are.
Gotta disagree on this one, Steve. First, it's not an analagous argument. There is no mention in the Bill of Rights regarding the "right" to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, drive around the country enough and you'll find that the laws really are not so uniform from one state to another. Probably no more so, in fact, than the laws pertaining to use of deadly force (once you get past or set aside the question of "can I legally carry in this state or not?").

In addition, the 2nd Amendment makes no metion of any mandatory training as a prerequisite to exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

The full faith and credit provision is also in the Constitution. It continues to baffle me how the federal gummint can say it applies to some laws, but not to that pesky 2nd Amendment.

Clean97GTI
May 30, 2005, 07:03 PM
HighVelocity, I wholeheartedly agree.

While other states honor NV's permit, I think that others won't because NV won't.
It's kinda stupid.

Standing Wolf
May 30, 2005, 08:43 PM
I don't want the federal government within five miles of my holster.

Vitamin G
May 30, 2005, 08:48 PM
What the government giveth, the government can taketh away...
(Prohibition anyone?)

The point of the bill of rights is that those rights were bestowed by "the creator" and do NOT come from the government. When they become bestowed by the government, the government can take them back...

Yes, I know if everyone went by that logic, we'd have had revolutions by now...

nico
May 30, 2005, 09:05 PM
If the guys in MD - Spot77, Girlwithagun, and so many others fighting the cause - can eventually get it thru there too then there really is hope, so that over time (however frustratingly slow) things can gel into a national reciprocity.

I agree. If the gunnies in the state can all get on the same page I think we may be able to get some progress done.

On a side note (since we're talking about national politics), I found out the other day that Stenny Hoyer is an old friend of my grandmother :eek: :barf:

38SnubFan
May 30, 2005, 11:28 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if in the next few years, the states had it worked out that pretty much any permit worked in any states. That would be key, but I have another idea.

Allow each state to allow their own laws/processes for Concealed Carry. For a federal permit, the Federal government can make up their own laws and processes.

That way, somelike like me, who may not want to go through all the trouble to apply for and procure a Federal permit, can still go down to his local sheriff, fill out the form, pay the $19, and have his PA License To Carry Firearms. He just won't be able to carry it outside of PA or those states that honor PA's permit.

Seems simple enough to me.

-38SnubFan

Boss Spearman
May 31, 2005, 02:13 AM
States' rights only apply to rights not specified in the Bill of Rights.
All states and cities who do not allow their citizens to carry weapons if they're not criminals are violating the Bill of Rights.

Control Group
May 31, 2005, 09:45 AM
There are three related issues when it comes to national CCW, or national CCW reciprocity (two very different ideas).

The first is whether or not the 2nd does or should fall under the umbrella of the 14th. Obviously, current doctrine is that it doesn't (the SCOTUS has not seen fit to "selectively incorporate" the 2nd), but there's an easy case to be made that it should. While the states' rights argument is conceptually valid, until the 14th is repealed, it simply doesn't have any legal standing (we can argue until the cows come home about whether or not the 14th is valid, but unless it's removed from the Constitution, it's the law of the land). Incorporation of the 2nd as an individual right under the 14th is, at least in my mind, the "holy grail" of the RKBA fight in this country.

The second is whether CCW itself is a second amendment issue, and, much though I wish it were otherwise, I don't necessarily think that it is (I'm open to arguments on it, though). The right to carry a firearm at all times is guaranteed under the 2nd, but the right to carry it concealed isn't. In my opinion, no state has the right to tell me I can't carry a gun, but states do have the right to tell me it has to be in plain view* (or, alternatively, that it has to be concealed).

There's certainly a point of view that any law which restricts how I carry a gun infringes my right to bear arms, but I don't hold with it. For example, I'm fine with laws that prohibit me from carrying a gun by aiming it at passers-by while I walk down the street.

Third, of course, is the full faith & credit clause of the Constitution, and whether this means that every state has a responsibility to recognize the licenses granted by others. This one is a resounding "no." I know it doesn't apply to lawyers, doctors, or nurses, so I imagine it doesn't apply to teachers, veterinarians, barbers, or anyone else professionally licensed by a state. Insofar as CCW is a licensed privilege (see point #2 above), it does not fall under the full faith & credit clause. The DL issue is one that the states worked out between themselves; each state has chosen to recognize the DL of every other state (this "Real ID" thing will probably have some sort of impact on this, but we've yet to see what).

*Yes, I realize this opens the door to onerous and/or unmeetable requirements for "plain view" and/or "concealed," but those would be their own violations of the 2nd. The principle, IMHO, is sound.

Smurfslayer
May 31, 2005, 04:31 PM
that the "more equal" animals on the farm already have nationwide carry. We can thank our benevolent masters at NRA-ILA, LEAA, FOP and many more for ramming it through. This was supposed to be a "first step" to help permit holders get the same privilege. Let's list all the help these groups have provided since the "protection for cops, but to hell with the rest of you" law:

...
...
...
...

Anybody know of any single thing that LEAA (for example) has done since getting nationwide carry for police that would enhance the privilege for citizens other than police?

How about FOP?
NRA-ILA?

Some of you seem offended by the fed stepping in on our side after decades of stepping in against us. In fact, it seems that we're cutting our nose of to spite our face at the prospect of compelling states to honor other permits. I for one wouldn't have my feelings hurt in the least if the fed compelled New Joizey to honor permits, NY too.

I for one would much rather see groups like ... LEAA, FOP, NRA-ILA jump into the fray by coming out with "LE nationwide carry a rousing success, time for other citizens to have the same protections"

RevDisk
May 31, 2005, 04:43 PM
Third, of course, is the full faith & credit clause of the Constitution, and whether this means that every state has a responsibility to recognize the licenses granted by others. This one is a resounding "no." I know it doesn't apply to lawyers, doctors, or nurses, so I imagine it doesn't apply to teachers, veterinarians, barbers, or anyone else professionally licensed by a state. Insofar as CCW is a licensed privilege (see point #2 above), it does not fall under the full faith & credit clause. The DL issue is one that the states worked out between themselves; each state has chosen to recognize the DL of every other state (this "Real ID" thing will probably have some sort of impact on this, but we've yet to see what).

Licensed privilege? Ah... Perhaps you are from a state that does not codify the right to bear arms in defense of oneself in your state constitution. In some shall-issue states, it is a right.

I'm mostly familiar with PA. In PA, it is a right. You do not have to prove yourself worthy to get a CCW, the state must prove you are unworthy. (alcohol problems, criminal record, whatever.) Basically, anyone legally allowed to own a firearm is legally allowed to CCW one. A driver's license is a privilege, for which you must prove yourself capable of possessing. A CCW is a right, for which to deny, the state must prove that you are not legally allowed to exercise.

The minor fee and filling out a form I see as an official mordida. Simply the govt wanting a small "bite". Annoying, yes. Illegal, probably. It's simply the cost of govt being the govt. According to our (state) Constitution, we should have Vermont or Alaska style CCW.

Sorta like voting. You have to register to vote, but the state cannot deny you the right to vote without proving just cause. (felony conviction, whatever)

The problem is that some other states do not believe CCW is a right. They believe it is a priviledge. I have no desire to give up my civil liberties because some other states do not have the same protections codified in their state constitutions.


38SnubFan's suggestion is the best one I heard yet. A Federal CCW and a State level CCW. A federal CCW would be akin to a driver's license, a privilege. A state level CCW would be subject to that state's Constitution.

Control Group
June 1, 2005, 11:28 AM
WI does, in fact, recognize the right carry arms in self-defense, and I would never argue that such isn't a right. WI, however, demands that you open carry.* Carrying arms concealed, however, is not necessarily a right. No state should prevent you from exercising your right to bear arms, but nowhere does the 2nd say you have the right to bear concealed arms. I don't necessarily think that the state is in the wrong if it mandates that the weapon you carry be exposed (or that it be concealed, for that matter), as long as it isn't infringing your right to carry that weapon.

Which is what I meant when I referred to CCW as a licensed privilege. Your right to carry a gun should not be infringed in any state, no matter where you're from. That's the 2nd, the 14th, and a recognition of a natural right to self-defense. However, the manner in which you carry that gun can be legally addressed.

To call upon a somewhat over-used analogy, your fundamental right to free speech is not unjustly infringed if a state passes a law saying you may not yell through a megaphone on a public corner at 3 in the morning. In may be the opinion of some states that people carrying concealed leads to public nervousness. It may be the opinion in others that open carrying amounts to an overt threat. As long as every citizen is legally, practically, and easily able to carry a gun, RKBA has not been infringed.

In that environment, it is not necessarily legitimate to demand that the population of one state respect the decisions of the population of another state.

*As a practical matter, this means WI has banned carrying guns, since open carrying in any metro area will get you hassled by the police at the very least. But this is an example of violating RKBA in application, not necessarily in principle. In principle, I can carry anywhere in the state.

mtnbkr
June 1, 2005, 12:03 PM
Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. Oh well.
Yeah, but it's sooo easy to get a non-resident permit in Pa. I got mine entirely through the mail and in less than two weeks!

Of course, Pa must think I'm going to teleport to their fine state since to get there I'd have to cross Md. ;)

Chris

pete f
June 1, 2005, 01:22 PM
How about this. the next time we get a majority of republicans in both houses, and a rep president, they decide to honor the 2nd ammendment and codify that if you are not a felon, or a prohibited individual, that you can carry. period. oh wait that would be sensible. no CCW no bull crap.. If you obey the law you get your rights guaranteed. otherwise jail time.

If you enjoyed reading about "How close to a national CCW law?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!