National permit recognition gains support


PDA






LAR-15
February 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
H.R.4547
Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] (introduced 12/14/2005) Cosponsors (18)
Latest Major Action: 12/14/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(18), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 2/14/2006 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/7/2006
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 2/1/2006 Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 2/1/2006
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 2/1/2006 Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 2/1/2006
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 2/14/2006 Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 2/14/2006
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/7/2006 Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 2/14/2006
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 2/1/2006 Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 2/8/2006
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 2/1/2006 Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 2/14/2006
Rep Schwarz, John J.H. "Joe" [MI-7] - 2/7/2006 Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 2/7/2006
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 2/1/2006 Rep Young, Don [AK] - 2/7/2006

If you enjoyed reading about "National permit recognition gains support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hawkmoon
February 15, 2006, 08:58 PM
Whoa.

BIG "Whoa."

What's this "national standard" stuff and where did that come from?

I am all in favor of a law that simply tells the states that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies, and that each state shall and must honor a license to carry issued by any other state. I am NOT in favor of the Feds establishing any so-called "national standard."

Isn't there a parallel bill that's closer to what I just described?

LAR-15
February 15, 2006, 09:41 PM
There's two bills out there with roughly 80 cosponsors between them (so cosponsor both) that enact some form of recopricity.

I don't feel like looking them up right now but I have posted about this in more detail on this site.

Generated a lot of comment

fantacmet
February 15, 2006, 10:02 PM
I am in 100% agreement with hawkmoon on this one. Each state should honor other states CHL's. This being the case I do think a basic inexpensive safety class would be a good idea, but in accordance with our constitution we shouldn't need to, or even need CHL's at all, but in light of the facts and the state of our country I think it would be the only way we could get that.

A federal CHL DOES exist but only for a selected few(I have met all kinds of people and only one has a federal CHL). I don't like the idea of a federal CHL though too easy to keep tabs on everyone if you know what I mean. Not just registered guns byut registered owners who excercise their rights. BAD idea.

Oregon has straight said they will never under any circumstances recognize another states CHL, as we don't want to allow criminals from other states to carry guns freely in Oregon. This I find completely appalling, my own state saying that CHL holders from other states are criminals. This is a public statement nonetheless.

Rev. Michael

LAR-15
February 17, 2006, 09:57 PM
What I think is you should be allowed to carry in a state under the laws of that state for carrying.

For example a Vermonter carrying in Ohio would be bound by Ohio law but would need only the permit/i.d. required in Vermont

Robert Hairless
February 18, 2006, 01:08 AM
What I think is you should be allowed to carry in a state under the laws of that state for carrying.

For example a Vermonter carrying in Ohio would be bound by Ohio law but would need only the permit/i.d. required in Vermont

If there were a national law to the effect of what you said in your first sentence, the situation would be exactly as it is now. Right now everyone is entitled to carry under the carry laws of every state. If you live in New York State and want to carry there you must follow the law of New York State. If you live in North Carolina and want to carry in New York State you still must follow the laws of New York State, but since New York State does not recognize North Carolina permits you can't carry there. There's no need for a national law allowing people "to carry in a state under the laws of that state for carrying."

A national law that said only something like "All states must honor each other's concealed weapons permits" would not enable people from Vermont to carry in Ohio: Vermont does not issue permits, so there would be no permit for Ohio or any other state to honor.

Maybe, then, this bill would attempt to address those and other complexities by providing a national standard, and maybe it's more necessary than might appear at first thought.

1911 guy
February 18, 2006, 08:38 AM
As soon as a federal law is passed regulating or standardizing CCW, there will be a push from the grabbers, who may wind up with a majority in 2008 due to mass stupidity, to outlaw CCW on a federal level. Since fed law supercedes state law, there goes your right of self defense. Anybody remember that little sentence in some old document about any and all powers not enumerated being retained by the states? I also seem to recall a little frackas over that. Oh, yeah. That's the Constitution and the Civil War.

Kodiaz
February 18, 2006, 08:47 AM
Yeah well I won't even say it.

Lone_Gunman
February 18, 2006, 08:50 AM
I think we are better off without any kind of federal laws about CCW.

Whenever the federal government gets involved in a subject, they generally screw it up. Look at education as an example.

beerslurpy
February 18, 2006, 09:42 AM
Federally mandated reciprocity would be a good thing.

The grabbers dont need pro gun legislation to justify a nationwide grab against keeping and bearing arms, let along pistols. They would do it anyway if they could get away with it.

As long as the federal standards only speaks to the ways and extent to which states must honor the carrying rights of non-residents we are good to go. Let's wait till we see the actual text of the law before reacting to the summary.

Desertdog
February 18, 2006, 12:10 PM
Federally mandated reciprocity would be a good thing.

From my NRA-ILA report today they state;
The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria.
If you have a standard none commercial driver’s license or a marriage license each state has their own regulations to obtain them and they are recognized by all states.

Commercial driver’s license has Federally Mandated requirements and tested to Federal standards. The states no longer control the commercial license, although they do issue them. The only nice thing about this is if you move to a different state, it is a simple matter to get a commercial license in the new state.
Is this what we want? I don't think so.

The dream would be Vermont style in all states, but for now we will take a bill that says "CCW licenses, issued by any state, will be recognized where ever you are."

wally
February 18, 2006, 12:20 PM
This is complicated.

Way back, most states made divorce more hassle than to get married, then Nevada came along with a two week residence requirement and their divorces were apparently honored everywhere. I'm too young to know the whole story of how it played out, but now, arguebly, divorce is too easy to get in all states. IMHO need a license to have children would do a lot more to cut crime in the long run than anything.

--wally.

RealGun
February 18, 2006, 12:43 PM
It appears that the bill is in committee, which means we may never see it. Note that it sets a standard, including prohibiting carry in nice restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. This would short circuit the effort in SC to remove that restriction. I would hold the law to the intent of withholding guns from circumstances where drunkenness may be involved. That would be a bar, not a dining room. Actual consumption is already prohibited, and rightly so IMHO.

Once the Feds get in the standards business, it does much more than enforce [Full Faith and Credit] provisions.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4547

109th Congress
H.R. 4547: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which...
Introduced: Dec 14, 2005
Sponsor: Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL])

This text was automatically converted from PDF format. Formatting glitches are a result of that process.


109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 4547
1ST SESSION


To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed
firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 14, 2005
Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national
standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a
State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF

4 CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NON-

5 RESIDENTS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United
7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C
8 the following:
2
1 `` 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain
2 concealed firearms by nonresidents

3 ``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any
4 State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not
5 prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting,
6 shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid
7 license or permit which is issued by a State and which
8 permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other
9 than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in an-
10 other State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun
11 or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported
12 in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection
13 (b).
14 ``(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits
15 to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a con-
16 cealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions
17 which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a
18 person to whom the State has issued such a license or
19 permit.
20 ``(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or
21 permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not,
22 in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station,
23 in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public
24 polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal
governing body, in a school, at a professional or school
athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an
establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic
2 beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the
3 sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent
4 expressly permitted by State law.''.
5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections
6 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item
7 relating to section 926C the following:
``926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by non-
residents.''.

wally
February 18, 2006, 12:50 PM
Not allowing carry in restaurants is IMHO a show stopper. Getting robbed in parking lots on your way to/from some place is way too common, if the crooks know you can't carry on your way into an expensive restaurant, look out, they'll become hunting grounds for predators.

--wally.

Highland Ranger
February 18, 2006, 12:56 PM
Even though this would benefit me as a resident of an oppressed state I somehow don't like it.

If the right of self defense is inherent to life (God given if you will, not a matter for man), and if the 2nd ammendment recognizes that right via the right to keep and bear arms . . . . . well then why do we need any licenses?

A license is for a privledge, not a right - i.e. something that can be taken away.

So I guess I'd have the same concern mentioned above - they give us this national carry license and then a few years down the road take it away.

I realize Vermont style carry is not likely to be adopted ever . . . . but if we are true to the cause, isn't that what the NRA and we should be fighting for?

Don't Tread On Me
February 18, 2006, 01:17 PM
BIG THUMBS DOWN.


Guys, we've hashed this out in a past thread - one that dealt a lot with Illinois. I've made my arguments very clear.


This is not a pro-gun bill. This is a pro-moreRestriction and regulation bill. It is never a good idea to federalize ANYTHING.


Guys, email those reps and tell them to put up a "sporting purposes" repeal bill or something. Why do our "pro-gun" efforts end up being idiotic things like national reciprocity with anti-gun elements?


If this ever passes, which I hope it doesn't - you all will regret it (except those of you in anti-gun states). Mark my words. I see nothing to gain, but a lot to lose. Bad deal.

Lone_Gunman
February 18, 2006, 01:33 PM
I agree we don't want this.

I don't really see how it will pass. I don't see how they have as much support for this as they do in Congress. Certainly representatives from terrible places like California, New Jersey, and Illinois would be opposed to this. And representatives from free states should be opposed to also, because they end up giving up some carry rights.

In Georgia, its illegal for us to carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol already, so we don't lose anything with that requirement, but a lot of states would.

As I have said before, increasing federal regulation of anything is never a good idea. Look at education as an example.

I am curious what the NRA's position on this bill is.

Old Dog
February 18, 2006, 01:41 PM
Anytime the federal government attempts to set a standard, there's going to be a problem. The reciprocity standard will no doubt be set at the highest levels in terms of requirements. Standards for issue are not going to become less restrictive, simpler or cheaper, nor will they make getting the licenses/permits faster.

In the case of something such as this, note that there WILL come standards for training and fees ... In the case of those states that either do not require any training (i.e., my state, Washington), or very little, these states will either have to then incorporate requirements for more stringent, longer and undoubtedly, more expensive training. Additionally, my state also has relatively inexpensive CPLs ($60 initial issue, $35 renewal, CPLs good for five years).

Any push for nationwide reciprocity should be done at the state level. If it becomes federal law, also expect additional taxes or fees from the federal government. Not to mention, more intensive national background checks (lengthening waiting periods for licenses and costing more). Forseeably, licenses may also be issued for shorter periods ...

Robert Hairless
February 18, 2006, 03:31 PM
It appears that the bill is in committee, which means we may never see it. Note that it sets a standard, including prohibiting carry in nice restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. This would short circuit the effort in SC to remove that restriction. I would hold the law to the intent of withholding guns from circumstances where drunkenness may be involved. That would be a bar, not a dining room. Actual consumption is already prohibited, and rightly so IMHO.



You've misread the bill you posted. The section (Section 2) you are talking about applies only to carrying in another state, one which does not issue licenses to carry concealed firearms. The bill would not affect the law in South Carolina or other states that do issue carry permits. Vermont is the only state I can think of in which that section of the law might apply.

You've also misread what the bill says about alcoholic beverages. Reread it and you'll see that it prohibits carry "in a portion of an
establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises, ... except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.''

So the bill does not say what you said it says. It does not prohibit carry in a nice restaurant that serves alcohol, only in the bar where the alcohol is dispensed, and only in states that do not issue carry permits (Vermont), and only if that state law doesn't expressly say you can carry in the bar. Vermont can modify its state law to allow carry in the bar if it chooses to do so. The law would not prevent it from doing so.

The standards in Section 2 of the bill you've posted do not apply within states such as South Carolina and other states that do issue permits, and the alcohol standard can be overruled by the law of the statesthat do not issue permits. In other words this section gives you what you want.

As for the objections that this bill lets the federal government put its foot in the door so it can have federal gun control .... It's one thing to be wildly paranoid but it's another thing to display such a serious disconnect with reality. The federal government can and will do whatever it chooses to do with respect to gun control legislation and this bill does not expand its ability to exert more control.

You seem to have forgotten the various "crime control" laws that have been in effect on the national level since 1934. How can you have forgotten the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which banned so-called "assault weapons," a law that sunset only a couple of years ago? Those laws were enacted even though this law did not exist.

As for fees .... Fees are levied only if there is something to be levied upon. This bill does not provide for a national license to carry so there is nothing on which to levy a fee. There also is no occasion that could trigger a check of any kind. The law would be transparent in those respects: the federal government would not know--and would have no way to know--whether you are carrying in a state other than your own. Turn rational.

What you're demonstrating is the same "all or nothing" attitude that consistently hurts all of us, because people who demand all or nothing usually wind up with nothing at all. This bill is good. It gives us something we want and doesn't take anything away from us. Keep fighting your friends and you will wind up with no friends, only enemies.

The Real Hawkeye
February 18, 2006, 03:46 PM
This has the potential of becoming something bad. If all the law did was to assert that each State must, in accordance with the US Constitution, afford full faith and credit to every other State's CCW licenses, that would be fine, and well within the legitimate powers of Congress to legislate, since this requirement for the States is already in the US Constitution, but has simply laid dormant with regard to CCW licenses only because Congress has failed to enact appropriate legislation in its regard. If, however, this is morphed into a system by which the Federal Government assumes regulatory control over CCW licenses, this would be unconstitutional, as the FF & C clause does not supply the Congress with any such regulatory authority. We will have to wait and see how this ends up. I don't want DC legislating any norms for State CCW licenses, even if they are voluntary norms simply qualifying a State for FF & C by other States under this legislation. They do not regulate the norms for State issued driver's licenses, and they should not for CCW licenses. Leave that entirely to the States, or it is unconstitutional and very dangerous.

The Real Hawkeye
February 18, 2006, 03:50 PM
Any push for nationwide reciprocity should be done at the state level. If it becomes federal law, also expect additional taxes or fees from the federal government. Not to mention, more intensive national background checks (lengthening waiting periods for licenses and costing more). Forseeably, licenses may also be issued for shorter periods ...At this time, I am tending to see things your way.

RealGun
February 18, 2006, 03:55 PM
You've misread the bill you posted. The section (Section 2) you are talking about applies only to carrying in another state, one which does not issue licenses to carry concealed firearms. The bill would not affect the law in South Carolina or other states that do issue carry permits. Vermont is the only state I can think of in which that section of the law might apply.

You've also misread what the bill says about alcoholic beverages. Reread it and you'll see that it prohibits carry "in a portion of an
establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises, ... except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.''

So the bill does not say what you said it says. It does not prohibit carry in a nice restaurant that serves alcohol, only in the bar where the alcohol is dispensed, and only in states that do not issue carry permits (Vermont), and only if that state law doesn't expressly say you can carry in the bar. Vermont can modify its state law to allow carry in the bar if it chooses to do so. The law would not prevent it from doing so.

The standards in Section 2 of the bill you've posted do not apply within states such as South Carolina and other states that do issue permits, and the alcohol standard can be overruled by the law of the statesthat do not issue permits. In other words this section gives you what you want.

As for the objections that this bill lets the federal government put its foot in the door so it can have federal gun control .... It's one thing to be wildly paranoid but it's another thing to display such a serious disconnect with reality. The federal government can and will do whatever it chooses to do with respect to gun control legislation and this bill does not expand its ability to exert more control.

You seem to have forgotten the various "crime control" laws that have been in effect on the national level since 1934. How can you have forgotten the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which banned so-called "assault weapons," a law that sunset only a couple of years ago? Those laws were enacted even though this law did not exist.

As for fees .... Fees are levied only if there is something to be levied upon. This bill does not provide for a national license to carry so there is nothing on which to levy a fee. There also is no occasion that could trigger a check of any kind. The law would be transparent in those respects: the federal government would not know--and would have no way to know--whether you are carrying in a state other than your own. Turn rational.

What you're demonstrating is the same "all or nothing" attitude that consistently hurts all of us, because people who demand all or nothing usually wind up with nothing at all. This bill is good. It gives us something we want and doesn't take anything away from us. Keep fighting your friends and you will wind up with no friends, only enemies.


This would be more valued if you would edit all the "yous" out of it. You can either add value or start a food fight. Debate ideas rather than people.

LAR-15
February 18, 2006, 04:07 PM
OK now that the text of the law has been posted it doesn't seem to be as bad as some on here claim.

Congress could ban CCW tomorrow if they wanted to.

Got it?

LAR-15
February 18, 2006, 04:09 PM
Here is a competing bill by John Hostettler:

Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1243 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1243
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 10, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. HALL, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANNON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. OTTER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SODREL, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is--

`(1) carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

The Real Hawkeye
February 18, 2006, 04:10 PM
OK now that the text of the law has been posted it doesn't seem to be as bad as some on here claim.

Congress could ban CCW tomorrow if they wanted to.

Got it?Really? And where in the US Constitution do you find that authority?

LAR-15
February 18, 2006, 04:14 PM
Really? And where in the US Constitution do you find that authority?

They can whether you like or not and it goes against the Constitution.

:(

The Real Hawkeye
February 18, 2006, 04:23 PM
They can whether you like or not and it goes against the Constitution.

:(This is part of the problem. This attitude that says they CAN do what they want, lawlessly or not, is what emboldens them. If most Americans were informed about the concept of limited Constitutional government, and held the view that the Federal Government CAN only do what it is empowered to do, they would be less inclined to usurp powers not delegated. This is why you should not speak the way you do. Words actually have implications behind them. Ideas have consequences. Once you, as an individual, resign yourself to the idea that the Federal Government can do what it likes, regardless of the law, then you have bowed out of the struggle.

We need to use the language of liberty, not of serfdom, unless that's how you think of yourself. Regardless of where you live, I live in a Constitutional Republic. Not a singular and consolidated republic, mind you, but a republic made up of a voluntary union among several sovereign States, in which the Federal Government is strictly limited in its powers to the express terms of the US Constitution, all other powers retained by and belonging to the States and the people respectively. Won't you join me?

Don't Tread On Me
February 18, 2006, 10:44 PM
At the very, very, very least - there is obviously enough dissent within the "gun-nut" community (as this and all threads on this subject shows) to convince us all to just let this go. It isn't worth it.

For these Representatives to be submitting such legislation means that some group (NRA?) and a number of citizens want this to be on the pro-gun agenda.


I say we go after things where we can get at least 80% of the community to go along. If we all can't back something supposedly pro-gun, there's no way it stands a chance against the anti-gun "mainstream" of politics.

Manedwolf
February 18, 2006, 10:59 PM
Not allowing carry in restaurants is IMHO a show stopper. Getting robbed in parking lots on your way to/from some place is way too common, if the crooks know you can't carry on your way into an expensive restaurant, look out, they'll become hunting grounds for predators.

--wally.

Not to mention the fact that criminals don't tend to obey THAT sort of law, either, and knowing that the occupants of a restaurant are unarmed...

To say nothing of bars. There'd just been that nutcase going on an axe-and-gun rampage in a MA bar because none of the patrons (or likely the bartender, it being MA) could be armed to stop him...

The Real Hawkeye
February 18, 2006, 11:42 PM
Not to mention the fact that criminals don't tend to obey THAT sort of law, either, and knowing that the occupants of a restaurant are unarmed...

To say nothing of bars. There'd just been that nutcase going on an axe-and-gun rampage in a MA bar because none of the patrons (or likely the bartender, it being MA) could be armed to stop him...You mean all bar tenders don't really have sawed off double barrel shotguns under the bar? :confused:

Robert Hairless
February 19, 2006, 06:20 AM
This would be more valued if you would edit all the "yous" out of it. You can either add value or start a food fight. Debate ideas rather than people.

I agree with the general principle and in fact I tried drafting my response without referring to you in particular but it didn't work because of the way you had worded your message to focus on how the bill appeared to you, the effect of it on your own state, your preference, and your opinion:

It appears that the bill is in committee, which means we may never see it. Note that it sets a standard, including prohibiting carry in nice restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. This would short circuit the effort in SC to remove that restriction. I would hold the law to the intent of withholding guns from circumstances where drunkenness may be involved. That would be a bar, not a dining room. Actual consumption is already prohibited, and rightly so IMHO

Other people in the thread were expressing their opinions--often based on someone's misreading of the bill (that way of saying it doesn't work, does it?)--so it hadn't occurred to me that anyone could reasonably object to a response directed at those opinions.

But I offended you and for that I am sorry.

My more generalized response would be that the bill as it has been reported here but not as interpreted here (that does seem to work) is a good bill. It allows the states to continue to set their own standards within their own borders while allowing people with concealed carry permits to behave legally as if they held resident carry permits while within the borders of each state. There is no fee, no tax, no additional license, no monitoring, no prying, no additional application, no limitations, and no additional checks.

The bill, if enacted, would free people who carry legally from worrying whether their permit is honored in another state. If one is driving from your state of South Carolina to New York State, for example, one should not be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. (New York State does not issue non-resident permits so one would be subject to arrest right now, without this law.) And if one is simply passing through Maryland one would be able to stop there for food or an overnight stay at a motel--neither of which are permissible now, because the federal safe passage act does not allow extended stopovers in such a state.

This bill would be a good law and would remove the need to have several non-resident permits, totalling several hundred dollars in cost, simply to travel within the borders of our own country. The bill has benefits without downsides. It's not a national license to carry. It is a transparent bill, providing a rational solution to a complex problem without intruding upon anyone's rights. It deserves our enthusiastic support.

Matthew748
February 19, 2006, 06:54 AM
I have commented on just about all of the threads on this topic in the past. It seems folks that live in states where CCW is the exception rather than the rule are in support of it. This is just a clever ruse to get rid of CCW. If this passed, the next thing they would do is pass some sort of standardization act using, oh I don’t know, Maryland or New Jersey as their model. It might look like a ray of hope to some people in bad states, but it is a double edged sword. When the pendulum swings the other way it will come back and cut us.

Highland Ranger
February 19, 2006, 09:50 AM
I'll admit, there was a point where I was in favor of this sort of thing.

Florida permit and I can be an American just like you.

But somehow giving ground just doesn't seem like a good way to win in the long haul.

hugh damright
February 19, 2006, 10:21 AM
Once you, as an individual, resign yourself to the idea that the Federal Government can do what it likes, regardless of the law, then you have bowed out of the struggle.

Ain't that the truth! People often tell me that States' rights are dead, or the Constitution is dead, but what is really dead is their respect for our constitutional form of government.

I was reading a book called "We the States" (highly recommended) which begins a chapter regarding the 14th Amendment by saying:

Great danger to constitutional government lies in popular misunderstanding of its precise methods and purposes. In many ways the small minority who would treat the United States Constitution as an archaic hindrance to their centralist purposes, and willingly would discard or subvert it, pose less threat than that far greater number who vocally support the Constitution, but who unwittingly approve or participate in actions that tend to destroy its protective features.

Manedwolf
February 19, 2006, 11:16 AM
You mean all bar tenders don't really have sawed off double barrel shotguns under the bar? :confused:

Maybe not that extreme, but it being MA, I'd be willing to bet that (since you need a concealed weapon permit for it, too), the bartenders aren't even allowed to have one of the large fire-extinguisher-looking sorts of pepperspray cannisters.

Nothing would surprise me about MA laws making victims of the populace, I mean.


As for the national CCW, I'd be in favor of it ONLY if it was a national re-recognition of Full Faith and Credit, and akin to driver's licenses being recognized across all states. No additional requirements, no additional bureacracy, and NO additional registries.

Desertdog
February 19, 2006, 11:35 AM
As for the national CCW, I'd be in favor of it ONLY if it was a national re-recognition of Full Faith and Credit, and akin to driver's licenses being recognized across all states. No additional requirements, no additional bureacracy, and NO additional registries.
My feelings too.

The Real Hawkeye
February 19, 2006, 11:37 AM
My feelings too.Ditto.

hugh damright
February 19, 2006, 12:01 PM
If FF&C applied only between States which wanted CCW, and there was no national standard .... I am not sure if I have another objection to FF&C being applied to CCW, except that I don't see how it could work ... if one State required training, testing, photo ID, fingerprinting, and so on to get CCW, then why would this State recognize a permit from another State where the only requirement was a clean record? And if this disparity in standards would have to be resolved by a national CCW standard ...wouldn't it be a worse standard for many of us ... and what would keep it from growing out of control until one of the national CCW requirements would be a badge (i.e. CCW for police only).

The Real Hawkeye
February 19, 2006, 12:08 PM
If FF&C applied only between States which wanted CCW, and there was no national standard .... I am not sure if I have another objection to FF&C being applied to CCW, except that I don't see how it could work ... if one State required training, testing, photo ID, fingerprinting, and so on to get CCW, then why would this State recognize a permit from another State where the only requirement was a clean record? And if this disparity in standards would have to be resolved by a national CCW standard ...wouldn't it be a worse standard for many of us ... and what would keep it from growing out of control until one of the national requirements for CCW is that you be a police officer?That is the danger. Given a choice, I'd rather leave things as they are. Let States work out reciprocity on their own, and let the people in the bad States move or work towards changing public opinion and their own State's laws. The success of CCW in other States will assist them in these endeavors. Experience teaches us the whenever the Fed gets a foot in the door, the door gets gradually wider, till its wide open. Just take public education as an example. First they just wanted to assist in funding. Next thing you know, they are issuing national standards for all public schools in the nation. No one has stopped to asked where this authority came from. They just follow orders. Same could happen with CCW once the camel's nose is under the tent.

Highland Ranger
February 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
This raises a point - I just read the NRa-ILa release on this and they are in favor of it.

If I have a Florida non-resident permit, would that be good in NJ?

If not, then this doesn't benefit those of us in the iron curtain states anyway . . . . .

The Real Hawkeye
February 19, 2006, 12:22 PM
This raises a point - I just read the NRa-ILa release on this and they are in favor of it.

If I have a Florida non-resident permit, would that be good in NJ?

If not, then this doesn't benefit those of us in the iron curtain states anyway . . . . .Under the proposed law, it would be good in NJ, but the proposed law would also establish standards that Florida would have to adopt in order to be included (voluntary, at least at first), and they almost certainly would choose to do so, which could make it harder to get a Florida permit. That's the concern.

mountainclmbr
February 19, 2006, 12:46 PM
If this ever passed, I would give a month's salary just to see the look on the face of Teddy the swimming champion!

Lone_Gunman
February 19, 2006, 12:51 PM
Are the liberals in Congress such as Ted Kennedy in favor of this bill?

It would seem to me that they ought to be. I think this gun has major anti-gun potential.

If they can get CCW regulated on a federal level, then just as soon as the liberals take control again, they can modify the federal requirements for the bill until no one can get a CCW.

For example, when the Democrats take control again, they could raise licensing fees to $10,000, and require a 1,000 hour training course. Very few people would think national CCW is a good idea then.

The Real Hawkeye
February 19, 2006, 02:58 PM
Unfortunately, it's my congressman who is sponsoring it. This is a delema for me, because he has always been very pro-gun, and probably thinks he doing us a great favor with this bill. Haven't contacted him about it yet. Clearly, since he is the sponsor, he believes in it, so not sure what good contacting him would do.

Nathaniel Firethorn
February 19, 2006, 04:42 PM
As I've said in other posts about this topic, it would work about the same as the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. Which, since Ronald Reagan's presidency, has prevented the several states from confiscating your firearms if you're just passing through.

- NF

LAR-15
February 19, 2006, 09:37 PM
Are the liberals in Congress such as Ted Kennedy in favor of this bill?

It would seem to me that they ought to be. I think this gun has major anti-gun potential.

If they can get CCW regulated on a federal level, then just as soon as the liberals take control again, they can modify the federal requirements for the bill until no one can get a CCW.

For example, when the Democrats take control again, they could raise licensing fees to $10,000, and require a 1,000 hour training course. Very few people would think national CCW is a good idea then.


Ted Kennedy has long fought this and LEO cch too.

The Feds are already involved in LEO CCH (concealed carry handgun).

And what bad has happened? They ticked off some anti-gun bureaucrats in Hawaii?

crazed_ss
February 19, 2006, 10:56 PM
As for the national CCW, I'd be in favor of it ONLY if it was a national re-recognition of Full Faith and Credit, and akin to driver's licenses being recognized across all states. No additional requirements, no additional bureacracy, and NO additional registries.

Agreed 100%

carebear
February 19, 2006, 11:52 PM
Under the proposed law, it would be good in NJ, but the proposed law would also establish standards that Florida would have to adopt in order to be included (voluntary, at least at first), and they almost certainly would choose to do so, which could make it harder to get a Florida permit. That's the concern.

Where exactly do you find in the text of the law as written now that FL would be required to do anything?

I could go either way on the bill itself but I'm not finding any such requirement.

Manedwolf
February 20, 2006, 12:28 AM
That is the danger. Given a choice, I'd rather leave things as they are. Let States work out reciprocity on their own, and let the people in the bad States move or work towards changing public opinion and their own State's laws. The success of CCW in other States will assist them in these endeavors. Experience teaches us the whenever the Fed gets a foot in the door, the door gets gradually wider, till its wide open. Just take public education as an example. First they just wanted to assist in funding. Next thing you know, they are issuing national standards for all public schools in the nation. No one has stopped to asked where this authority came from. They just follow orders. Same could happen with CCW once the camel's nose is under the tent.

The issue I have is that in my location, it's not at all uncommon to accidentally cross into MA in a curve on a road, even if you're heading to someplace in NH.

And woe unto you if you forgot to unload your weapon and stash it and the ammo separately in the trunk, if an MA cop stops you. You're in serious trouble.

That strikes me as sheer idiocy.

IndianaDean
February 20, 2006, 12:49 AM
We should just enact Vermont carry for the entire country and eliminate permits.

gunsmith
February 20, 2006, 12:54 AM
as it stands now , I can not visit my home town (NYC) because of their idiotic
un constitutional gun laws.
If it passes muster with the NRA legal crew, it's probably ok.

carebear
February 20, 2006, 01:03 AM
What fed.gov giveth, fed.gov can take away.

Besides being totally unrealistic, federally secured/mandated Vermont carry would have that risk.

I'll take Nat'l. reciprocity if it comes (and as the present bill has some "what if" problems but nothing actual in writing of danger, I'll take it in this format) but I'd hate to turn actual licensing over to a gov't I can't control on a local/state level.

IndianaDean
February 20, 2006, 01:13 AM
The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

ElTacoGrande
February 20, 2006, 01:21 AM
We can make legal arguments all day long but at the end of the day, it comes down to culture. If we end up with a society where the vast majority of people hate guns and are afraid of guns, we're going to lose, no matter what it says on some dusty old piece of paper. Remember, there are 99% gun bans in Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. These have all stood up to 2nd amend court challenges. People in those places are afraid of guns and hate them because they are ignorant about them, and they associate them only with "bad people". Logic doesn't matter here.

The reason why CCW reform is the most important and decisive victory in the recent history of the gun rights movement is that it wins the culture war. Suddenly, the State has said, in a formal and official way, that it is legitimate and good for citizens to carry arms and to defend themselves. That means that guns are NOT just being carried by bad people. The State has given its blessing to people being armed.

That is a tremendous victory, and it leads to some other important consequences, too. It creates a constiuency of gun-carriers. These are people who will be angry if guns are banned. People who carry every day don't want to give that up. These will be angry single-issue voters. Elections are usually decided by some close margins, so even if only 1% of the people CCW, that's enough to tip an election, if they are angry and motivated. Conversely, if they passed more restrictions on guns in a place like NYC or Chicago, very few people would care because, well, there are so few gun owners. Finally, we know that the technique of gun banners is to ban one milimeter at a time. Banning flash hiders, pistol grips, etc. Well, if people are carrying guns around as part of their normal routine, then it because hard to get people riled up over flash hiders. I mean, what's the point, there are already armed people all over the place!

And that's why I support this bill. It will bring real-world practical legitimacy to carrying guns to every state in the US. Great, so we have (or will soon have, go WI!) CCW in almost every state now except CA, NY, NJ and a few other small ones. That's wonderful. But CA and NY have the most electoral votes of any state, and they are also opinion leaders of the country and the world. And guess what, CCW reform is going to be a long shot in CA and NY. This is the most direct way we can achieve it.

Bottom line: CCW ends the debate on gun control, it creates a constituency of gun owners / packers, and it legitimizes self defense and gun ownership, and we need those victories in the large and powerful states of CA and NY, and this is the best or only shot we have at that.

It's pretty hard to pant about "sporting use" when the Authorities are issuing written permits that allow us to shoot people who threaten our lives, right?

Your gun rights are not safe anywhere in the country if the "gun rights culture wars" are lost decisively in big powerful states.

Gray Peterson
February 20, 2006, 02:30 AM
HR 4547, the NRA, and Cliff Stearns are basically "Johnnie Come Latelies" in this situation. A few things. HR4547 does not establish "national standards" nationwide. It only establishes it in places where CCW permits are NOT issued, which is a problem for Vermont residents, but not in the way that you think.

Let's go through some of the issues with both bills, truthes:

1) CLAIM:It will allow Congress to ban or regulate concealed carry.

The fact is, folks, they already do, and they certainly won't need this bill to do so. They already ban carry in Federal Courthouses, military bases (without authorization), and Federal Buildings (that's a matter of debate on that one). Do you think that the anti-gunners NEED this bill to ban CCW or make it discretionary nationwide? That's news to me. I certainly don't see any efforts to use 18USC926A's "precedent" to ban interstate transportation of firearms at all.

2) CLAIM: HR4547 would establish a "national standards" that will restrict concealed carry in all states.

First, the bill only does that in states that don't issue concealed carry. The former revisions of this bill in the years past required having a home state permit, but this new version does not anymore. Also, many of you misunderstand the point of both of these bills. There is no "punishment" as far as the federal government goes. Let's give this as an example:

18USC926A protects your right to carry a firearm in your car across a state that prohibits it as long as you carry it in a manner perscribed by law. Let's say, for example, you're in New York. You decide to dalley around New York rather than continue to transport your firearm across the state to, say, Vermont.

You're in violation of New York law at this point. The question is, are you VIOLATING 926A? The answer is no. The law, just like both HR1243 and HR4547, is a "notwithstanding any state or local law" bill. 926A, along with these bills, PROTECT you from concealed carry bans and handgun registration/licensing requirements that may exist at the state and local level while you travel, and does not by itself provide a punishment.

3) CLAIM: Both HR1243 and HR4547 are unconstitutional because it's overreaching federal power.

I might point out that gun owners on this site benefit from FOPA86's protections. There is no way to argue that HR1243 is unconstitutional yet 18USC926A is constitution. It uses the same exact stated powers. In fact, HR1243 is most likely more rooted in constitutionality than 18USC926A, or LEOSA codified in 18USC926B and C, due to the "full faith and credit" clause.

4) CLAIM: HR1243 is a better bill, and better supported.

Agreed. HR1243 is a better solution because it leaves to each state to the extent where guns are allowed, even in states that prohibit concealed carry entirely. Granted, this power could be abused, however the intent of this bill is clear, and likely any such sheninigans by Illinois or New York or California or any other hugely anti-gun state to frustrate the Congressional intent behind either HR1243 or HR4547 would likely get tossed.

RealGun
February 20, 2006, 05:47 AM
there are 99% gun bans in Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. These have all stood up to 2nd amend court challenges.

I don't believe that is factual. Can you cite cases? What court has ever said the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply? Most of the time, the 2A is not even pleaded by the defendant. The 2A question has methodically been kept out of the appellate system.

The Real Hawkeye
February 20, 2006, 09:24 AM
Where exactly do you find in the text of the law as written now that FL would be required to do anything?

I could go either way on the bill itself but I'm not finding any such requirement.I said that though it was voluntary, my feeling is that Florida, along with most other CCW states, would feel a great pressure to adopt the new standards so as to "get with the program."

Gray Peterson
February 20, 2006, 11:07 AM
I said that though it was voluntary, my feeling is that Florida, along with most other CCW states, would feel a great pressure to adopt the new standards so as to "get with the program."

Great pressure? By who? Anti-gunners? Who are these all powerful boogeymen that opponents of this legislation think will use these bills to somehow destroy our carry rights nationwide?

Read my post, HR4547 makes CLEAR that the "national standard" has to do with the removal of the protection of being popped for a state illegal carry charge in places that DO NOT issue permits. Right now, by the end of the year, that's likely going to be only 2 states, Wisconsin and Illinois? Vermont doesn't issue permits either, however people visiting Vermont do NOT need this bill's protection.

That being said, I don't support HR4547, I support HR1243. HR4547 is an inferior bill due to the "national standard" in terms of places you cannot carry in states that don't allow CCW, which is stupid and will be a moot in 5 years anymore, at the most.

HR1243 does it right by basically stating that you have to honor the "places you cannot carry a firearm at all" provisions of state law, and don't have to honor the actual carry ban itself. For example, Wisconsin prohibits ALL carry of firearms in "taverns" and government buildings, because open carry there is legal except in those particular places on foot. Concealed carry is banned there entirely. Does it or does it not make more sense than Congress stating that the provisions "don't apply if you carry in a nice restaurant?".

Highland Ranger
February 20, 2006, 11:47 AM
The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

You'd still be able to get a Florida non-resident permit which would be valid in the other states.

Right now, its how those of us in the Nanny States pretend we're free when we travel . . . . .

Other states also issue permits to non-residents.

RealGun
February 20, 2006, 12:39 PM
You'd still be able to get a Florida non-resident permit which would be valid in the other states.

Right now, its how those of us in the Nanny States pretend we're free when we travel . . . . .

Other states also issue permits to non-residents.

Does FL not require that you have a license in your home State? I am looking at the New Hampshire application, which I need for Georgia CCW, and it asks for home State permit number.

Quoting the Florida page on packing.org:

"Reciprocal privileges are granted to resident licensee/permitee of states as indicated below. The Attorney General has authority to enter into agreements with other states."

* Alabama

* Alaska

* Arizona

* Arkansas

* Colorado

* Delaware

* Georgia

* Idaho

* Indiana

* Kentucky

* Louisiana

* Michigan

* Mississippi

* Missouri

* Montana

* New Hampshire

* New Mexico

* North Carolina

* North Dakota

* Ohio

* Oklahoma

* Pennsylvania

* South Dakota

* Tennessee

* Texas

* Utah

* Virginia

* Wyoming

Inoxmark
February 20, 2006, 01:10 PM
The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?It is not. However, pro-CCW movement in these states (including my state of CA) would get a huge boost on the grounds of "hundreds of thousands of visitors are legally allowed to carry firearms, why aren't our own residents? Are we less trustworthy than them?"

Highland Ranger
February 20, 2006, 01:56 PM
No - Florida non-resident permit is an independent process - no home state permit is needed. Reciprocity is a separate issue.

Its been a while but I believe to get the permit you need:

- filled out application, notarized
- fingerprint cards
- passport photos
- a nominal fee
- proof of firearms safety training (nra basic handgun course qualifies)

Its shall issue, so if you fill out the app correctly and include all attachments and your background check comes back ok, you get your permit 60 or 90 days later.

There are other states that do this but right now, Florida gives you the most bang (reciprocity) for the buck.

See here for all the information and to request forms: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

See the packing.org page as well

Get one!

Highland Ranger
February 20, 2006, 02:02 PM
It is not. However, pro-CCW movement in these states (including my state of CA) would get a huge boost on the grounds of "hundreds of thousands of visitors are legally allowed to carry firearms, why aren't our own residents? Are we less trustworthy than them?"

True and in the meantime, if I am reading this correctly and barring any changes, you could apply for a Florida permit and use that in your home state.

Firethorn
February 20, 2006, 02:09 PM
Does FL not require that you have a license in your home State? I am looking at the New Hampshire application, which I need for Georgia CCW, and it asks for home State permit number.

If you have a license in the states listed, you do not normally need a Florida CCW. Florida Law treats those state's permits the same as a florida one.

Examples:

1. I have a ND CCW. I can carry concealed in florida without any extra permits
2. I live in Nebrasksa, which has no permit process. I can apply for a florida one.

Where it might help is that more states recognize florida's permit than some other state's. For example, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming are all listed as recipical for Florida, but not North Dakota.

However, getting a ND permit was a lot easier as I'm now a ND resident, and the only states I frequent are ND, SD, FL, and NE. My permit's good in all but NE, and under proposed legislation, NE isn't going to have any recipicality or non-resident permitting for a while. :(

Of course, if my parents move out of NE like they're talking about, well, I won't have any reason to go back there.

Don't Tread On Me
February 20, 2006, 02:53 PM
The reason why CCW reform is the most important and decisive victory in the recent history of the gun rights movement is that it wins the culture war. Suddenly, the State has said, in a formal and official way, that it is legitimate and good for citizens to carry arms and to defend themselves. That means that guns are NOT just being carried by bad people. The State has given its blessing to people being armed.


[snipped]

Bottom line: CCW ends the debate on gun control, it creates a constituency of gun owners / packers, and it legitimizes self defense and gun ownership, and we need those victories in the large and powerful states of CA and NY, and this is the best or only shot we have at that.

It's pretty hard to pant about "sporting use" when the Authorities are issuing written permits that allow us to shoot people who threaten our lives, right?

Your gun rights are not safe anywhere in the country if the "gun rights culture wars" are lost decisively in big powerful states.




I disagree.



1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.


2] It is bad enough that the current concealed carry set-up is one of a priviledge, not a RIGHT. The State "gives" us this priviledge like the good little serfs that we are. That is fundamentally wrong. Only 1 State has crossed that line and has carry without licensing.


CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.



I added some bold and underlines to the parts of that quote where I have a problem. We need to get out of the mode where we accept concealed carry only IF we accept that it is a gift from our masters - the State, not a creator given Right.



National carry would do more of the same - it would add more power, regulation and restriction by involving the Federal government. The Feds are the worst of the worst.



We'd benefit FAR more by concentrating our efforts on an already-PRO gun state and taking their existing concealed carry and turning it into Vermont style carry!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because then we'd not legitmize the concept that the government gives us our priveledge, but instead, legitimize that the right to carry is a RIGHT independent of governments.



That is where we need to be strategically. NOT trying to ram restricted, Government-permissible concealed carry on the ANTI-gun states so that our "oppressed" brother and sister pro-gunnies can carry a gun too.


Strategy my friends. Pick a pro-gun state, and try and get a 2nd Vermont going. That is the key to success. Not giving more rights to the government.

carebear
February 20, 2006, 03:00 PM
Alaska IS the 2nd Vermont carry. More are probably on the way. Neither of these bills would prevent that from continuing to occur. They don't proscribe states from continuing to loosen their own laws, they would in fact give ammo to the "everybody else is doing it" argument in the dark blue states.

Strategy means having multiple angles of attack and forcing the enemy to react our to gun rights legislation on the local, state and federal level simultaneously, not setting up individual, head-to-head battles, one at a time to be won or lost by whomever can concentrate more resources.

Get them so busy writing letters to stop our bills that they don't press for new ones of their own.

All or nothing, all at once isn't good strategy.

mp510
February 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Hawkeye, etc... congress really could ban ccw whenever they wanted, regardless of the constitutionality. It would be a while for the court system to fix any such ban, and that would be provided that the executive branch, which is in charge really gives a care to the executive branch.

On topic, the same could happen if national CCW reciprocity were established. Chicago has chosen not to recognize the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (according to America's 1st Freedom Magazine). What is to stop some city, may San Francisco, or DC from doing the same thing, and skrewing the law abiding carrier?

What I would be in support of, is making the ccw permit system like the cdl, where states must issue permits to anyone who meets the criteria, and can pass the tests. However, I believe that each state ought be able to make less lenient regulations (ie VT carry) for intrastate purposes shall they so choose. Included should be national reciprocity, and local freedom to everyone.

scout26
February 20, 2006, 04:48 PM
The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?


Because even if Illinois won't enact concealed carry, I can get a PA Non-Resident permit ($20 good fro 5 years), then I can carry in Illinois and Daley and Blago will soil themselves.

Plus, they can watch as the CCW licence fees flow out of state. I would bet they do a quick about face once they sniff the money......

Gray Peterson
February 20, 2006, 06:31 PM
I disagree.

1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.

Laughible. We all thought that Maryland would be absolutely impossible, but now it looks like shall-issue CCW will pass there within the next few years, if not this year.


CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.


Have you read HR1243? Any state that allows their citizens to carry without a permit generally, like Vermont and Alaska would be able to carry nationwide on the strength of their residency.

IndianaDean
February 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
Because even if Illinois won't enact concealed carry, I can get a PA Non-Resident permit ($20 good fro 5 years), then I can carry in Illinois and Daley and Blago will soil themselves.

Plus, they can watch as the CCW licence fees flow out of state. I would bet they do a quick about face once they sniff the money......


I was not aware you could get a non-resident permit in any state though unless you already had a permit in your home state.

The Real Hawkeye
February 20, 2006, 09:30 PM
I was not aware you could get a non-resident permit in any state though unless you already had a permit in your home state.No, Florida only requires a safety course from your home state. No home state CCW license is required, and the hunter safety course suffices for the safety course requirement. That's what I used to get my Florida CCW license before I moved here, i.e., my hunter safety course ID card. I happen also to already have had a CCW license in New York, but the New York license, if you can believe it, didnt' require a safety course of any sort, only a clean record and an issuing agency who likes the looks of your face. If they don't like your face, though, even if you have a clean record, they are at liberty to deny the license.

Highland Ranger
February 20, 2006, 09:45 PM
NRA handgun course qualifies as well. Doesn't have to be from home state.

gunsmith
February 20, 2006, 10:25 PM
please support so I can visit my family in New York City

ElTacoGrande
February 21, 2006, 12:33 AM
1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.

If they allowed (ie, the government officially endorsed) the practice of Christianity in SA, it wouldn't become Christian but they would start tolerating Christians and that would be a big step.

2] It is bad enough that the current concealed carry set-up is one of a priviledge, not a RIGHT. The State "gives" us this priviledge like the good little serfs that we are. That is fundamentally wrong. Only 1 State has crossed that line and has carry without licensing.

This argument comes up all the time with CCW. "Don't support that CCW bill because it requires a permit to carry!" That's good in theory but in the real world, we have to deal with what we've got, which is that tough states like Wisconsin and many others are not suddenly going to go Vermont. They need to get there incrementaly, and having a few years of success with a permit system is one way to get there.

We need to look for small incremental victories rather than going for one big ultimate victory, which would be a SCOTUS case that throws out all the gun control laws in the US and says that we can carry without permits. Not going to happen!

CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.

And the only way we will get there is by creating a culture shift, and a federal CCW law like this will create that shift in the two places where it is most needed: CA and NY.

Let's get this bill PASSED. As a Californiano, I can tell you that if this bill passes, it WILL create a cultural shift in LA and SF, which are the two main cities for it. There are a lot of people in both those cities who would like to CCW but those two cities have corrupt entrenched sheriffs who won't write permits.

In fact, there are already 45k license holders in CA, mostly in rural counties, so you can't tell me that CA will never "get" CCW. We already have it. This bill will just push us further towards a state shall-issue program.

IndianaDean
February 21, 2006, 03:38 AM
My understanding is national reciprocity would only exist in states that have the right to carry. Therefore, noone in Illinois would be able to carry, nor would anyone else from any other state be allowed to carry in Illinois. There would be no change for states that do not grant ccw.

carebear
February 21, 2006, 05:12 AM
My understanding is national reciprocity would only exist in states that have the right to carry. Therefore, noone in Illinois would be able to carry, nor would anyone else from any other state be allowed to carry in Illinois. There would be no change for states that do not grant ccw.

You aren't reading the bill. :banghead:

926D. National standard for the carrying of certain
2 concealed firearms by nonresidents

3 ``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any
4 State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not
5 prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting,
6 shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid
7 license or permit which is issued by a State and which
8 permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other
9 than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in an-
10 other State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun
11 or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported
12 in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection
13 (b).
14 ``(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits
15 to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a con-
16 cealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions
17 which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a
18 person to whom the State has issued such a license or
19 permit.
20 ``(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or
21 permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not,
22 in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station,
23 in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public
24 polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal
governing body, in a school, at a professional or school
athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an
establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic
2 beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the
3 sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent
4 expressly permitted by State law.''.
5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections
6 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item
7 relating to section 926C the following:
``926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by non-
residents.''.
If the state doesn't have a CCW permit law then its own laws (VT) or the list given in (2) [B] apply.

Lone_Gunman
February 21, 2006, 07:19 AM
If this passes would Vermont and Alaska have to start some type of licensing for CCW? If they didnt then no one in their state would be able to carry in other states?

Waitone
February 21, 2006, 08:36 AM
CCH has progressed to its current status because it occurred in flyover country away from DC. National gun opposition groups simply did not want to spend its resources on 50 local fights. National media by and large ignored the movement, again, not wanting to use limited resources on a flyover issue.

So now along comes someone from the federales saying, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help YOU." The federales want to create one gigantic control knob to turn CCH on and off at their whim. Right now gun-hate groups and the national media (sorry about the repetition) have to go to what 40+ states and turn individual knobs. Very expensive and time consuming. With a federal mandate we are faced with on master knob that is under the control of who knows what in the future.

I just love all the FF&C argumentation in favor of national CCH; so eloquent, so constitutional, so American and generally irrelevant IMNSHO. National CCH is an issue of control. In case it has missed your notice, the federales are on a jihad to control any and everything. National CCH is just another example of galoping statism. If these knotheads want to control CCH, make'em fight it out over 40+ battlefields.

RealGun
February 21, 2006, 10:11 AM
CCH has progressed to its current status because it occurred in flyover country away from DC. National gun opposition groups simply did not want to spend its resources on 50 local fights. National media by and large ignored the movement, again, not wanting to use limited resources on a flyover issue.

So now along comes someone from the federales saying, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help YOU." The federales want to create one gigantic control knob to turn CCH on and off at their whim. Right now gun-hate groups and the national media (sorry about the repetition) have to go to what 40+ states and turn individual knobs. Very expensive and time consuming. With a federal mandate we are faced with on master knob that is under the control of who knows what in the future.

I just love all the FF&C argumentation in favor of national CCH; so eloquent, so constitutional, so American and generally irrelevant IMNSHO. National CCH is an issue of control. In case it has missed your notice, the federales are on a jihad to control any and everything. National CCH is just another example of galoping statism. If these knotheads want to control CCH, make'em fight it out over 40+ battlefields.

The proof of what you are saying is that the bill proposes an interstate commerce solution. It says nothing about RKBA or Full Faith and Credit.

Nathaniel Firethorn
February 21, 2006, 10:51 AM
Yup, there are gun-grabbers hiding under every bed. :rolleyes:

Does this legislation permit you to carry where you couldn't carry before? Yes.

Does the legislation forbid you from carrying where you can carry now? No.

Dig it: It's a step forward. It's not perfect, but it's a step forward.

Nothing done by human beings is perfect. There's only one guy who does everything perfectly, and his name is God.

We'd all rather have a huge percentage of the 20,000 US gun laws erased from the books, but that just ain't-a gonna happen.

- NF

carebear
February 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
AK has licensing still. It gets you reciprocity and the NICS waiver but is not necessary in-state for carry.

Highland Ranger
February 21, 2006, 05:16 PM
What's the chamce of this thing or anything remotely like it passing?

Timeframe?

Or are we debating whether pigs will fly right side up or upside down?

Gray Peterson
February 21, 2006, 11:36 PM
I might also point out that your ability to carry a firearm across states that prohibit firearm ownership without license is due to the same reasoning. Anyone remember FOPA86?

ElTacoGrande
February 22, 2006, 02:50 AM
What's the chamce of this thing or anything remotely like it passing?

Timeframe?

Or are we debating whether pigs will fly right side up or upside down?

Yeah, that's what I want to know.

I want to emphasize again, CCW means the state gives us a license to shoot to defend ourselves. It destroys all sporting use arguments. In fact it opens up challenges to sporting-use based legal restrictions: "Well, of course this isn't a sporting use gun; right here I have a permit from the state to use a gun for a non-sporting purpose."

It also brings CCW to CA and NYC and it WILL make a cultural difference.

We need to support this bill, if it has a real chance of passing.

Robert Hairless
February 22, 2006, 03:34 AM
Yeah, that's what I want to know.

I want to emphasize again, CCW means the state gives us a license to shoot to defend ourselves. It destroys all sporting use arguments. In fact it opens up challenges to sporting-use based legal restrictions: "Well, of course this isn't a sporting use gun; right here I have a permit from the state to use a gun for a non-sporting purpose."

It also brings CCW to CA and NYC and it WILL make a cultural difference.

We need to support this bill, if it has a real chance of passing.

Your argument about how this bill (and presumably others that expand the right to carry even incrementally) should help effect a culture shift is simply stunning. Congratulations. You have my sincere admiration for it. It seems so obvious after you said it.

I'd like to revise your conclusion, though. We need to support this bill even if it doesn't have a hope of passing. Repeated support and constant pressure are what it takes to move ahead. The Brady Campaign knows that it works. They'll fight even when they seem likely to lose. It's the fight that counts, without the constant bickering that seems an unfortunate characteristic of gun owners. I can't imagine anyone involved in the Brady Campaign arguing that it will be counterproductive to fight anything that favors expanded gun rights but it's easy to find lots of gun owners who will argue against anything that favors any expanded gun right. It's like a dog who has been beaten, I think, and snaps at a friendly hand.

I have more than enough experience of life to know that incremental advances are best of all. They quickly become part of a culture, often without creating big backlashes and overwhelming opposition. The Brady Campaign knows that too. It's how they work most effectively.

Thanks for your good insights.

ElTacoGrande
February 22, 2006, 04:38 AM
Your argument about how this bill (and presumably others that expand the right to carry even incrementally) should help effect a culture shift is simply stunning. Congratulations. You have my sincere admiration for it. It seems so obvious after you said it.

Thank you Robert!

I would like to address everyone who is complaining that this would allow fed regulation of guns in states: I'm terribly sorry, there's nothing preventing them from doing that already. Take a look at the 1994 AWB. What stopped that? What prevented them from tacking on "and all handguns" on the list? Or "and all guns chambered in 223" or "and all semi-auto rifles"? They could have. It would have been just as "legal". The legal reasoning and authority would be the same as the authority behind the AWB itself. The only thing that prevented them from doing that was the balance of power in Congress, not any legal reason.

National CCW wouldn't change a thing. They can already ban guns outright if they want to. Has any court ever struck down DC's ban, or Chicago's ban, or NYC's ban? No they haven't. I hear people say, "the 2nd is all the license I need". Great, I feel the same way, but do you think that dusty old piece of paper will do you any good in a real court case? If you think so, try open-carrying one day in Chicago or DC. Just try it and see if the court "got your back". There are plenty of people in prisons in the US for owning things like MGs, or for other violations of laws which we know are unconstitutional. Is the 2nd helping them? They're still there rotting in prison.

Yes, I know: "shall not infringe" means (to us) "shall not infringe". There are enough liberals in the courts who put Congress' intent as a higher authority than the Constitution, so that's it. If Congress wills it, then go ahead and infringe it!

Our being "right" doesn't do a thing about this. We (THRers) are just a tiny group of people. We have the correct interpretation of the Constitution but that won't do a thing about these bans.

We have two hopes for success:

One is to get more originalists on the SCOTUS. W is helping on this some, and might be able to get one or two more. Two is to influence the culture of this country and by doing that, get some better people in Congress. That is something where we CAN make a difference, each one of us. For whatever reason, liberals put great faith in the all-mighty State, and if the State endorses something, it must be good. If the state endorses CCW, then CCW might be good! We can make a difference by teaching non-shooters how to shoot, and supporting bills like this, and getting more people to CCW.

I have more than enough experience of life to know that incremental advances are best of all. They quickly become part of a culture, often without creating big backlashes and overwhelming opposition. The Brady Campaign knows that too. It's how they work most effectively.


I'm solidly in favor of incremental victories. They are a lot more likely to get us where we want to go than hoping for some total victory SCOTUS case where SCOTUS strikes down the NFA and everything else. That is not going to happen unless we get about three more solid justices on the SCOTUS, and that's not likely.

So we need incremental victories!

hugh damright
February 22, 2006, 10:39 AM
I would like to address everyone who is complaining that this would allow fed regulation of guns in states: I'm terribly sorry, there's nothing preventing them from doing that already ... They can already ban guns outright if they want to.
Allthough the US has strayed from the Constitution, I still believe in the rule of law, and I will not turn against it in the pursuit of national CCW.


So we need incremental victories!
We need to stop these incremental attacks on Tenth Amendment federalism

Gray Peterson
February 22, 2006, 01:52 PM
Allthough the US has strayed from the Constitution, I still believe in the rule of law, and I will not turn against it in the pursuit of national CCW.



We need to stop these incremental attacks on Tenth Amendment federalism

Ok, then ask the states to file a lawsuit to strike down 18USC926A, which protects interstate transportation of firearms, so we can get arrested for transporting our firearms across New York or Massachusetts without a license that none of us can obtain due to New York or Massachusett's idiocy.

hugh damright
February 22, 2006, 03:02 PM
Ok, then ask the states to file a lawsuit to strike down 18USC926A, which protects interstate transportation of firearms, so we can get arrested for transporting our firearms across New York or Massachusetts without a license that none of us can obtain due to New York or Massachusett's idiocy.

The States delegated the US power over interstate commerce, and it would impact interstate commerce if guns could not be transported through some States. I see nothing unconstitutional about the US providing federal protection for interstate transportation of firearms. I do not see it as an attempt by the US to usurp powers reserved to the States.

But among the powers reserved to the States are police powers, and these police powers are traditionally viewed as to include jurisdiction over CCW. For the US to assume jurisdiction over CCW would be for them to usurp undelegated jurisdiction.

I do not see how a State's CCW laws collide with federal powers over militia, interstate commerce, the Second Amendment, or anything of that nature. I believe that CCW is an area where the US is powerless.

Gray Peterson
February 22, 2006, 10:21 PM
The States delegated the US power over interstate commerce, and it would impact interstate commerce if guns could not be transported through some States. I see nothing unconstitutional about the US providing federal protection for interstate transportation of firearms. I do not see it as an attempt by the US to usurp powers reserved to the States.

But among the powers reserved to the States are police powers, and these police powers are traditionally viewed as to include jurisdiction over CCW. For the US to assume jurisdiction over CCW would be for them to usurp undelegated jurisdiction.

I do not see how a State's CCW laws collide with federal powers over militia, interstate commerce, the Second Amendment, or anything of that nature. I believe that CCW is an area where the US is powerless.

No offense, Hugh, but that is a distinction without a difference. Legally, what is the difference between 926A and 926D? There's no different whatsoever.

New York and Massachusetts certainly views ANY possession of a handgun unlicensed is a major criminal offense within it's police powers. It certainly didn't prevent Congress from passing 18USC926A (used to be just 926 until LEOSA passed).

hugh damright
February 22, 2006, 10:29 PM
No offense, Hugh, but that is a distinction without a difference. Legally, what is the difference between 926A and 926D? There's no different whatsoever.

It would make it easier if you would refer to points of law rather than code numbers. I think you are saying that there is no difference between banning CCW and banning transportation of guns through a State. If that is your point, I just addressed it. The US has no power over CCW, they do have power over interstate commerce. If a State bans CCW it does not conflict with federal law, but if a State bans transportation of guns through its territory it conflicts with the federal power over interstate commerce. There is most certainly a distinction and difference between a State banning CCW and a State banning guns altogether.

RealGun
February 23, 2006, 07:05 AM
If a State bans CCW it does not conflict with federal law,

Banning CCW or even requiring concealment is unconstitutional. We've just gotten used to the idea. Someone forgot to amend the Constitution. The rationale for requiring CCW and licensing is so tortured that few understand it.

The Real Hawkeye
February 23, 2006, 07:55 AM
The States delegated the US power over interstate commerce, and it would impact interstate commerce if guns could not be transported through some States. I see nothing unconstitutional about the US providing federal protection for interstate transportation of firearms. I do not see it as an attempt by the US to usurp powers reserved to the States.

But among the powers reserved to the States are police powers, and these police powers are traditionally viewed as to include jurisdiction over CCW. For the US to assume jurisdiction over CCW would be for them to usurp undelegated jurisdiction.

I do not see how a State's CCW laws collide with federal powers over militia, interstate commerce, the Second Amendment, or anything of that nature. I believe that CCW is an area where the US is powerless.Well, we could look to the Ninth Amendment for that authority, assuming you consider it to have been incorporated by the Fourteenth. At the time of the Founding, no one questioned the right to carry a firearm where ever, and however one chose, across State lines or not. That is to say, to do so was an acknowledged right retained "by the People." A right is a liberty that just governments may not interfere with. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment (assuming Fourteenth Amendment Incorporation) authorizes Congress to prevent States from interfering with the right of the People to travel across State lines while exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that States may not unduly burden a citizen's right to travel, and State measures which interfere with said fundamental right must survive the strict scruteny test to be Constitutional. Right to Travel: While not expressly defined in the text of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
has stated that the right to travel is a “privilege and immunity of national citizenship
under the Constitution,”34 as well as a “part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizens
cannot be deprived without due process of law.”35 The Court has declared that the
constitutional right to travel consists of three different components: first, it protects
the right of a citizen of one state to enter and to leave another state; second, it
protects the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien
when temporarily present in the second state; ... Precedent regarding the right to travel, has developed along two primary strands.
The first addresses burdens imposed by state governments and involves the
Fourteenth Amendment, ... Under the Fourteenth Amendment cases, the right to travel from one state to
another has been considered a fundamental right under the Constitution.37 Consistent
with its status as a fundamental right is the requirement that the government’s action
satisfy the constitutional standard of review often referred to as strict scrutiny, or
heightened scrutiny.38 Under strict scrutiny the government must provide a
compelling state interest for the burden and show that the means utilized are narrowly
tailored to the achievement of the goal or, phrased another way, the least restrictive
means available. -Find LawA State imposed burden on out-of-Staters denying them the liberty of carrying their primary means of personal security into said State would, therefore be subject to the strict scrutiny test in order to be found Constitutional. Is throwing people in jail for peaceably carrying a means of lawful self-defense the least restrictive means available for achieving a reduction in violent crime? Hardly.

hugh damright
February 23, 2006, 09:55 AM
Banning CCW or even requiring concealment is unconstitutional.
No it is not. At least twelve State Constitutions specify that the people have a RKBA, but that the State has a right to pass CCW laws. The SCOTUS has said that CCW laws are not unconstitutional. I believe I read in Cooley's book on Constitutional law that he said CCW laws did not violate the Second Amendment.

Where do you get this idea that CCW is unconstitutional? It seems to defy all of reality.

RealGun
February 23, 2006, 10:22 AM
The SCOTUS has said that CCW laws are not unconstitutional.

Can you cite that case?

RealGun
February 23, 2006, 10:35 AM
No it is not. At least twelve State Constitutions specify that the people have a RKBA, but that the State has a right to pass CCW laws. The SCOTUS has said that CCW laws are not unconstitutional. I believe I read in Cooley's book on Constitutional law that he said CCW laws did not violate the Second Amendment.

Where do you get this idea that CCW is unconstitutional? It seems to defy all of reality.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/14th-amendment.pdf

Read the summary paragraph on page 10. For credibility, start at the home page at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

Robert Hairless
February 23, 2006, 02:30 PM
Allthough the US has strayed from the Constitution, I still believe in the rule of law, and I will not turn against it in the pursuit of national CCW.



We need to stop these incremental attacks on Tenth Amendment federalism

Then now is the time for you to take a bold stand in defense of your principles instead of compromising in any way. Don't apply for or accept a concealed weapons permit in your state and refuse to recognize any federal law that impinges upon the Tenth Amendment. Dispose of any firearms you acquired under federal regulations. Should you travel from your state to another while in possession of a firearm you acquired otherwise, follow the laws of your own state only, and if you are stopped in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, or other states that prohibit you from possessing any firearm without its resident permit and are arrested simply present the arresting officer with a copy of the Bill of Rights and explain your principles to him.

michaelbane
February 23, 2006, 02:37 PM
I like either of the bills and think we should fight for one of them to pass. Both of them clearly authorize a person who has a permit from any state to carry throughout any other state. The way I interpret it, if you live in a "discretionary state" like NJ, MA, MD or CA, or a "non issue state" like WI, you can apply for a FL, VA or UT permit by mail and it will be valid in your home state as well as all others.

It is clearly within the power of Congress to legislate this matter under the interstate commerce clause. I'm not worried about opening a can of worms as to what Congress might do to limit it later. If they do, we're no worse off than without any legislation in the first place.

The best part of the legislation, though, is the use of the word "firearm" in the legislation. Not "handgun". In Pennsylvania, our CCW permits allow us to carry handguns and short barreled rifles and shotguns that are normally class 3 weapons. To my knowledge, we're the only state that has this unique wording in the CCW law. We also don't have an assault weapons ban. The way I read this bill, it not only requires recognition of the license by all the states, but also the types of the firearms allowed by the license (other than a machinegun or destructive device). So if a Pennsylvania CCW holder legally owns and carries, say, an semi-auto UZI, in Pennsylvania, they could do so in New Jersey, or any other state, which has an assault weapons ban.

Hawkmoon
February 28, 2006, 02:16 PM
So the bill does not say what you said it says. It does not prohibit carry in a nice restaurant that serves alcohol, only in the bar where the alcohol is dispensed, and only in states that do not issue carry permits (Vermont), and only if that state law doesn't expressly say you can carry in the bar. Vermont can modify its state law to allow carry in the bar if it chooses to do so. The law would not prevent it from doing so.
No, you are misreading this. Some states DO disallow CCW in any establishment serving liquor. That would mean that is such a state your out-of-state permit/license would be subject to the state law, and it is YOUR responsibility to know what the law is in each state.

Of course, the same would be true if each state honoured other states' permits without the Feds imposing any restrictions, and I guess that's really the way it should be. But your post implies that under this proposed law you can carry in restaurants in any state, and that is incorrect.

Hawkmoon
February 28, 2006, 02:23 PM
The proof of what you are saying is that the bill proposes an interstate commerce solution. It says nothing about RKBA or Full Faith and Credit.
Ding! We have a winnah!

You are correct. The correct, Constitutional appraoch to this would be, preferably, just a simple act reaffirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and that all state laws pertaining to CCW are void. Failing that, a Federal law should simply informt he states that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies and that they cannot regulate the carry (concealed or otherwise) of weapons (guns, knives, nunchukas, tasers, pepper spray or whatever) by residents of other states when visiting or transiting their state if the visitor holds a license or permit from any other state.

Hawkmoon
February 28, 2006, 02:37 PM
The best part of the legislation, though, is the use of the word "firearm" in the legislation. Not "handgun". In Pennsylvania, our CCW permits allow us to carry handguns and short barreled rifles and shotguns that are normally class 3 weapons. To my knowledge, we're the only state that has this unique wording in the CCW law. We also don't have an assault weapons ban. The way I read this bill, it not only requires recognition of the license by all the states, but also the types of the firearms allowed by the license (other than a machinegun or destructive device). So if a Pennsylvania CCW holder legally owns and carries, say, an semi-auto UZI, in Pennsylvania, they could do so in New Jersey, or any other state, which has an assault weapons ban.
Michael, that's a very interesting and creative interpretation of the proposed law, but I most assuredly would not wish to be the test case. That's a real stretch of the full faith and credit clause. That's like saying your PA driver's license allows you to operate your vehicle in the other 49 states under the PA motor vehicle laws, and I don't think anyone believes that to be the case.

hugh damright
February 28, 2006, 03:31 PM
The best part of the legislation, though, is the use of the word "firearm" in the legislation. Not "handgun". In Pennsylvania, our CCW permits allow us to carry handguns and short barreled rifles and shotguns that are normally class 3 weapons ...The way I read this bill, it not only requires recognition of the license by all the states, but also the types of the firearms allowed by the license (other than a machinegun or destructive device). So if a Pennsylvania CCW holder legally owns and carries, say, an semi-auto UZI, in Pennsylvania, they could do so in New Jersey, or any other state, which has an assault weapons ban.
The letter of the law does not override the spirit of the law. Are PA CCW permits intended to apply to all firearms including class 3 weapons? Is the Bill in question intended to permit people with PA CCW permits to carry all firearms including class 3 weapons nationwide?

Highland Ranger
March 3, 2006, 11:41 PM
Did Geraldo do a piece on this for the 6pm NYC Fox news?

Missed it but my son said he did something on concealed carry in NY.

Maybe he was dreaming!

alan
March 4, 2006, 12:08 AM
Called my elected things again today, soliciting their support.

beerslurpy
March 4, 2006, 12:33 AM
Anything that brings large scale CCW into the commie states is a HUGE guerilla victory for us. CCW wins hearts and minds, no two ways about it. If this passes, 10 years later you will see gun control dying not just nationwide but in the places where it is most entrenched now.

The purpose of CCW is three-fold:
1) allow people to defend themselves and only have to worry about whether it was self defense. These are the same laws that protect cops, politicians and other establishment figures, so the self defense laws are actually very fair, even in the commie states. Most states are still running off variants of common-law for self defense. Florida's duty to treat was actually harsher than most gun ban state. This also means no more Bernie Goetzes (not guilty of murder, but guilty of NYC gun possession).

2) make carrying of weapons more pervasive and more socially acceptable without initially freaking out Cindy Soccer Mom when the program is introduced. The big win here comes with Cindy Soccer Mom finds out that all her friends have been carrying for the past 10 years and everyone else considers it completely normal. Once the herd starts thinking "baaaa baaa guns not scary anymore" it is all over lol tipping point. Seen it with my own eyes in Florida.

3) demonstrate that having everyone armed doesnt actually make society any more dangerous but without actually risking persecution in the years it takes for statistics to accumulate. Having the gun carrying existing on the books but not visibly in public is almost like having your cake and eating it too. No one who objects to it can see who is doing it to stir up trouble. This is going to be especially useful in cities with anti-gun police/prosecutors who wont be able to crack down without getting in major trouble over 4th amendment issues. Watch for a test case on this one. And then there really will be no more bernie goetzes.

RealGun
March 4, 2006, 07:49 AM
Anything that brings large scale CCW into the commie states is a HUGE guerilla victory for us. - beerslurpy

If it is via legislation, unwilling States can make a strong, very shrill case against it. If it is via enforcement of the Constitution, the discussion is over.

ElTacoGrande
March 4, 2006, 10:04 AM
Anything that brings large scale CCW into the commie states is a HUGE guerilla victory for us. CCW wins hearts and minds, no two ways about it. If this passes, 10 years later you will see gun control dying not just nationwide but in the places where it is most entrenched now.

Senor understands perfectly why this is such a good idea. It normalizes the whole thing. It will normalize it in the last gun control holdouts (mainly CA and NY). Guess what these holdouts have the biggest two chunks of votes in congress and the electoral college. We need them or gun rights are in danger nation-wide. If we can get CCW in CA or NY or both, it drives a stake through the heart of gun control in the US. Then we can start helping our friends to the south and north.

The Real Hawkeye
March 4, 2006, 10:34 AM
Senor understands perfectly why this is such a good idea. It normalizes the whole thing. It will normalize it in the last gun control holdouts (mainly CA and NY). Guess what these holdouts have the biggest two chunks of votes in congress and the electoral college. We need them or gun rights are in danger nation-wide. If we can get CCW in CA or NY or both, it drives a stake through the heart of gun control in the US. Then we can start helping our friends to the south and north.This could backfire. Right now, CCW is protected as something which is exclusively a State matter. Enemies of liberty are forced to fight against it on a State by State basis. Each CCW State represents a separate bulwark against their ends. Should the Federal camel ever succeed in getting its figurative nose under the proverbial tent of State CCW, we could see those tents ripped asunder in one fool swoop. Once the Fed is involved to any degree, the task of liberty's enemies becomes that much easier, i.e., they need only focus all their efforts at Congress and the Supreme Court.

Whenever I see arguments like the one I quoted above, I cannot help seeing images of the final scene in The Matrix, where Agent Smith thinks he has finally defeated Neo. He has "accessed" him and is beginning to assimilate him, as it were. Those who advocate the Federal approach are like Agent Smith, in that they see this as a sort of final death blow to the enemies of concealed carry (all those damned Neos out there), but Agent Smith was in for a bit of reversal of fortune. No longer was Smith assimilating him as a prelude to Neo's destruction. What Smith had unwittingly done was leave himself open to being himself assimilated, as it were, by Neo, who used this newly provided channel into Smith to destroy him.

Ok, maybe it's just a hokie movie, but I think it is a valuable illustration of my point. This channel that many are attempting to open up, so as to deal the final death blow to the enemies of CCW might well leave us wide open to a Neo-style reversal.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 4, 2006, 10:53 AM
If it is via legislation, unwilling States can make a strong, very shrill case against it. If it is via enforcement of the Constitution, the discussion is over.

I bet a very good way to get to enforcement via the Constitution would be the predictable shrill reaction by certain states. Legislation like this is a great way to get a good Second Amendment case with good facts where the plaintiff isn't a felon/bootlegger.

LAR-15
March 4, 2006, 07:01 PM
Contacting my legislators Monday

LAR-15
March 4, 2006, 07:11 PM
The Real Hawkeye,

The Feds are invovled with ccw already with giving leos and retired leos concealed carry rights nationwide and in US territories.

They are in the position to protect the interstate right of self defense.

The Feds should make all states recognize a right to carry for defense.

michaelbane
March 4, 2006, 11:58 PM
First to Hawkmoon: I don't agree with your analogy to driver's licenses. Motor vehicle codes and cars are pretty much the same no matter what state you live in. Second, for Hugh Damright: here is the actual text from Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act from Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:

§ 6102. Definitions.

Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this subchapter which are applicable to specific provisions of this subchapter, the following words and phrases, when used in this subchapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:

***

"Firearm."
Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.

(a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

§ 6109. Licenses.

(a) Purpose of license.--A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth.

§ 6106.1. Carrying loaded weapons other than firearms.
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in Title 34 (relating to game), no person shall carry a loaded pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle, other than a firearm as defined in section 6102 (relating to definitions), in any vehicle. The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons excepted from the requirement of a license to carry firearms under section 6106(b)(1), (2), (5) or (6) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license) nor shall the provisions of this section be construed to permit persons to carry firearms in a vehicle where such conduct is prohibited by section 6106.

Whoever wrote both bills were probably not aware of this quirk in Pennsylvania law. Since neither of them specify "handgun", my opinion is that for Pennsylvania permit holders, class 3 weapons are fair game.

alan
March 5, 2006, 12:46 AM
The legislative proposal should be as clean, meaning simple, straight forward as can be written, without so much as an extaneous coma, lest the lawyers and or bureaucrats get a handhold.

alan
March 5, 2006, 01:01 AM
The legislative proposal should be as clean, meaning simple, straight forward as can be written, without so much as an extaneous coma, lest the lawyers and or bureaucrats get a handhold.

One thing I've always been curious is the following.The operation of motor vehicles, based on the numbers of people killed and injured, year in, year out, must be a quite dangerous way in which to occupy oneself. Despite this factor, I can freely operate my automobile or one that I've rented or borrowed anywhere in the U.S., with whatever drivers license I happen to have. No questions are asked, assuming I abide by local speed limits, and such.

On the other hand, even though I may have a state issued Concealed Carry License or Permit from my state of residence, I quite often cannot carry concealed on my person, a handgun in another state. I can though, as above noted, operate a vehicle, in any of the 50 states and however many U.S.territories there might still be. Given that driving a vehicle appears to be more dangerous than is carrying a concealed pistol of revolver, this situation strikes me as just a bit peculiar. Of course, some have told me that I have "strange tastes", which perhaps explains my curiousity.

Highland Ranger
March 5, 2006, 08:34 AM
Automobiles are necessary for the subjects to go about the business of generating wealth for the masters . . . . . hence the difference.

bnhcomputing
March 18, 2009, 04:45 PM
Comment #: 58:
For example, Wisconsin prohibits ALL carry of firearms in "taverns" and government buildings, because open carry there is legal except in those particular places on foot.

This is not true. Wisconsin prohibits carry of hand guns in "taverns" unless you/I/we have the owners permission and there is no restriction on long guns.

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2009, 08:24 AM
(necro thread alert!)

alan
March 19, 2009, 11:38 AM
As I said earlier, a CLEAN BILL is the way to go. Srrikes me that this "federal standards" dirties the thing up, which should be avoided.

Never give lawyers or bureaucrats or "government employees" the proverbial inch, lest they take the often mentioned mile, or two, possibly three.

MT GUNNY
March 19, 2009, 11:53 AM
I'm on the Fence on this Bill. So I have a Serious ?

Drives Licenses ar Issued By the State and So are CCP's. The Laws Regarding these Two Licenses are Made by the State. So How are Either of those Federalized?

3v1lj03
March 19, 2009, 12:04 PM
I'm on the Fence on this Bill. So I have a Serious ?

Drives Licenses ar Issued By the State and So are CCP's. The Laws Regarding these Two Licenses are Made by the State. So How are Either of those Federalized

The laws about drivers licences have changed. Have you heard of "Real ID" My licence in Indiana was suspended for failure to prove insurance in Virginia 16 years ago when I was not a resident of Virginia and I am held hostage by the Real ID act that ties alll the state licences together. Here is you Federal ID folks.:eek:

dave_pro2a
March 20, 2009, 01:40 PM
Why on earth should we allow the Obama administration anywhere near our State CCW rights?

I can only see this going bad, in the long run.

Hungry Seagull
March 20, 2009, 02:18 PM
We need 34+ States form a supermajority and say that the associated Amendments as written within the Consitution stands as it is and we dont need Uncle Sam to be imposing or writing more and more rules, laws and whatnot to force the last few strong states into compliance.

If the Federal Government isnt Careful; eventually all the States will simply respect each other's CCW face value and enjoy the fees and such on thier own.However, anything that tells joe citizen that he can bear arms anywhere in the USA any way he chooses to will be most helpful.

thesolidus
March 29, 2009, 05:58 PM
Colorado used to have different carry laws in every County! It was almost impossible to cross the state and obey the law no matter how you carried because counties would often demand the opposite if their neighbors.
Eventually we passed a law stating every county had to come to a state standard and every county had to allow CCW from other counties to carry as long as they obeyed the state law.

As soon as it passed a Sheriff in a small eastern county started issuing thousands of CCW's. You were hard pressed to get one in some places, but if you applied in that county (and they took your $) you could carry anywhere in the state.

Me, i'd love to have a Utah CCW work in California!

But, yeah, I don't like all the anti gun people knowing my name either.

alan
March 30, 2009, 12:17 AM
thesolidus wrote in part the following:

But, yeah, I don't like all the anti gun people knowing my name either.

----------------------

Have you realized that they already might?

ThrottleJockey
March 30, 2009, 12:31 AM
They can have my name, they can have my ssn, they can even have`my birthday and my truck, but when it comes to my guns, all they're getting is the bullets!!! One at a time and they'll be moving pretty fast.

I for one would really like to see some uniformity from state to state. I drive a truck for a living and it is getting very unsafe for us out here. I hate having to know the laws of every state I pass through, and having to stop at state lines to secure/unsecure my gun regularly. I just want to carry the damned thing so that I can make it home to my kids in the likely event that I will one day be forced to protect myself or the millions of dollars worth of cargo in my trailer at any given time.

Hungry Seagull
March 30, 2009, 07:19 AM
Desertdog, it may be simple, but the key is this.

The CDL from the old state MUST be surrendered to the NEW state you are getting the CDL from.

I started way back in the day where you could get any number of A licenses in any number of states. Just haul out the cleanest from the pile and give to the leo standing on your fuel tank. After mid 1994? forget it.

Arkansas has a number of states that agree for CHL's and it's not too difficult to get another state's CCW to gain more states to honor yours. Otherwise just travel through the non agreement states with stuff secured.

model67a
April 1, 2009, 06:08 AM
This is the 111th Congress. The bill in this congress is HR 197. Check out HR 17 too.


http://www.govtrack.us/

If you enjoyed reading about "National permit recognition gains support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!