Bill forces ALL states to accept CCW permits


PDA






jfountain2
April 16, 2008, 02:02 PM
Just read this on another forum, I wish I could get a list of the 33 congress members who support this bill. Hopefully it will go through.
Read it below or follow this link... http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt)
Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits

By Aaron Sadler
THE MORNING NEWS
WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

Boozman said the bill ensures Second Amendment rights.

"I've always felt like you can have a gun, openly display it, and there not be a problem," he said. That some states reject licensed permits from other states "infringes on the Constitution."

Nearly 62,000 Arkansans have concealed gun permits.

Arkansas permit holders are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 27 states, including every neighboring state.

Arkansas recognizes permits issued in 30 states.

Fourteen states do not recognize permits issued elsewhere.

"You have friends who are used to having a gun in their car and things like that, then inadvertently being over the state line or out of state and being concerned they were running afoul of state law," Boozman said.

Boozman's bill would require even Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not have right-to-carry laws, to recognize licenses issued in other states.

A bipartisan group of 33 House members are co-sponsors of the bill, Boozman said.

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to gain enough support for the legislation, and said there is anti-gun sentiment in the Democratic-led Congress. But he cited statistics that indicate crime decreases in states with concealed guns laws.

According to a study cited by the National Rifle Association, violent crime declined each year from 1977 to 1994 in jurisdictions where a concealed gun law was in effect.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

Arkansas at one time had minimum reciprocity requirements, said state police spokesman Bill Sadler. Those regulations mandated that other states' training standards must be equal to or stronger than Arkansas' minimum requirements for a permit holder.

The General Assembly since has stripped those requirements, Sadler said.

Sadler said he would not comment on the merits of Boozman's bill until he had seen the proposed legislation.

Boozman said he feels strongly that Americans should be allowed to carry guns.

"I grew up in Arkansas, and it was not uncommon to see people in high school with gun racks in the back of their trucks, who would go squirrel hunting after school was over," Boozman said. "To be honest, it's something I always felt like there wasn't any question we could do these things."

His 26-year-old daughter, Kristen Boozman, has an Arkansas concealed weapons permit, as do other family members, he said. The congressman himself does not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill forces ALL states to accept CCW permits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BigG
April 16, 2008, 02:05 PM
Per the Constitution:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

How is a gun permit any different than a marriage license or driver's license? :confused:

Eightball
April 16, 2008, 02:07 PM
the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun,How dumb can the guy be? "Our organization is anti-gun by name, but it's not anti-gun."

Someone needs to get that list. If my congress critters aren't on it, I'm going to write them until they are.

Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, [Peter Hamm of the Brady Bunch] said.Now, is this because they had them before they were arrested and put on death row, or did they apply for them and undergo the necissary course training while on death row with the prison guards' consent? Maybe the prison guards let the inmates borrow their weapons to take the class?
:rolleyes:

jfountain2
April 16, 2008, 02:17 PM
I just called the Congressman Boozman's office and they are sending me a link to the list of co-sponsors. I will post it as soon as I have it.


Edit. Okay here's the list as it appears on the bill.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 2008
Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SALI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

ronwill
April 16, 2008, 03:18 PM
Several national reciprocity bills have been attempted in the past and failed. I would be pleasantly surprised to see this one make it and truly hope it does.

swifteagle
April 16, 2008, 03:24 PM
Find link to bill & full text of HR 5782 here (http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/hr-5782-national-concealed-carry.html).

hill billy
April 16, 2008, 03:31 PM
Most interesting. Duncan Hunter is on that list, I recently attended a meeting with him and spoke to him on the phone regarding a different issue. I'll have to call and thank him for his support.

swifteagle
April 16, 2008, 03:41 PM
Yes my Representative was on the list as well - I've given him my thanks.

BigG
April 16, 2008, 05:43 PM
D'oh - I guess full faith and credit does not apply, according to you gurus -

swifteagle
April 16, 2008, 07:18 PM
BigG wrote: D'oh - I guess full faith and credit does not apply, according to you gurus -

I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself a guru, just an average citizen who wants to be able to remain armed while driving across States without getting thrown into jail.

Of course full faith & credit should apply, but the States have been ignoring it illegally. Someone could volunteer to be caught with a concealed weapon in California with a valid permit from another State, and then take it to court pleading full faith & credit, but something tells me that we'll be underwhelmed with volunteers jumping at the bit to take that risk. Passing a law telling States that they must provide full faith & credit to other States can bypass the issue of leaving it up to Judges to decide.

packnrat
April 16, 2008, 09:48 PM
alas i do not have anyone to call to let them know to support this bill.

fianstien and boxer would kill this bill.:what:

pitty us here in ca.


.


but i do have a utah permit :neener:

UnTainted
April 16, 2008, 10:03 PM
yay utah!

orionengnr
April 16, 2008, 10:17 PM
"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.


I'd sure like to see anything that supports that ludicrous assertion. :rolleyes:

scurtis_34471
April 17, 2008, 12:58 AM
Wow. The Brady Bunch lie all the time, but this one is a whopper

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

You have to pass an FBI background check to get a Florida Concealed Weapons License.

Cuda
April 17, 2008, 01:14 AM
Why is it that my marriage and drivers license's are valid in all of the USA but my CCW is not??


C

Guitargod1985
April 17, 2008, 01:46 AM
Why is it that my marriage and drivers license's are valid in all of the USA but my CCW is not??


Because our government chooses to acknowledge statutory law while ignoring the Constitution.

Devonai
April 17, 2008, 02:21 AM
I would definitely like to quit paying $100 every year for my Massachusetts non-resident permit.

Samuel Adams
April 17, 2008, 02:54 AM
To play devil's advocate, would this bill violate the principle of Federalism and be just another power grab by the Feds? South Carolina is working on a similar bill that would grant reciprocity to any state that issues permits to its own citizens.

TAB
April 17, 2008, 03:15 AM
even if it was to pass it will be struck down by the courts...

This is a pipe dream.( atleast for the near future)


Oh and to all the people that say, but my DL and my marrage Lic is good every where...so does that mean all lic and permits should be good everywhere?

BigG
April 17, 2008, 08:29 AM
Oh and to all the people that say, but my DL and my marrage Lic is good every where...so does that mean all lic and permits should be good everywhere?

I guess my point has always been you do not need a permit to exercise a right, so I reject the concept of permission = Mommy may I? The permit system is just another infringement that people make valid by slavishly grasping at it.

TAB
April 17, 2008, 08:46 AM
What about the right to work in your chosen profession? Lots of jobs out there require some type of permit/ lic... do you think those are infringments as well?

saunderscc
April 17, 2008, 09:36 AM
I have contacted my Representative here in VA, Thelma Drake and the one for my home of record (stationed in VA but home of record is NC) Howard Coble. I would love to see this bill passed.

BigG
April 17, 2008, 10:02 AM
Double tap - sorry!

BigG
April 17, 2008, 10:05 AM
What about the right to work in your chosen profession? Lots of jobs out there require some type of permit/ lic... do you think those are infringments as well?

The "right to work" is not enumerated in the BILL OF RIGHTS. I thought that's what we are talking about infringement of the right to bear arms.

Right to work in chosen profession is nowhere specifically guaranteed. What if your chosen profession is medicine and you don't believe in medical school or licenses? I think the STATE has a role in some areas like this, although they try to expand it as much as possible. Also, unions and professional organizations try to burden up the process with to my mind useless requirements simply to protect their jobs.

The right to bear arms is a totally different case from the "right" to work in your chosen profession.

TAB
April 17, 2008, 10:10 AM
The bill of rights is a "add on" to the USCONs. Also things like peacably assemble frequently require a permit to do so... sad reality is that we don't have any rights that are not infreinged apon in one form or another.

XDKingslayer
April 17, 2008, 11:06 AM
I'm sorry, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one.

Say this bill goes through, it may cause a riff (and looks like it already is) concern each state's qualification process being different or more difficult. What is to stop them for pushing for a singular qualification all states use?

Then, if they do that, do they use Florida as their template or Illinois/California/New York/New Jersey for their template?

CCW doesn't need this bill. Qualifications need to go away completely.

BigG
April 17, 2008, 11:53 AM
The bill of rights is a "add on" to the USCONs.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Article V says anything properly ratified is incorporated into Constitution so why should add on or not make a difference?

To my way of thinking, if US Constitution is supreme law of land, State Law should not trump it. {scratching head}

ronwill
April 17, 2008, 12:20 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one.

Say this bill goes through, it may cause a riff (and looks like it already is) concern each state's qualification process being different or more difficult. What is to stop them for pushing for a singular qualification all states use?

Then, if they do that, do they use Florida as their template or Illinois/California/New York/New Jersey for their template?

CCW doesn't need this bill. Qualifications need to go away completely.

XDKingslayer, it would be no different than driver's or marriage licenses. Each states requirement for those differ and are still accepted. Some states require driver's training to get a license, others don't. Some states require a waiting period on getting married and others don't. Why not a CCW?

ArcherandShooter
April 17, 2008, 01:42 PM
Just wrote my Congressman and asked him to sign on as a cosponsor, and to encourage others to do so as well.

Have you all written yours yet?

Blackbeard
April 17, 2008, 02:26 PM
Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

I'll bet you a box of .223 that he thinks states should be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Blackbeard
April 17, 2008, 02:28 PM
Then, if they do that, do they use Florida as their template or Illinois/California/New York/New Jersey for their template?

The qualifications for Illinois carry are pretty easy: Don't be in Illinois.

Roccobro
April 18, 2008, 03:58 AM
XDKingslayer, it would be no different than driver's or marriage licenses. Each states requirement for those differ and are still accepted. Some states require driver's training to get a license, others don't. Some states require a waiting period on getting married and others don't.

Don't some states even recognize same sex marriages from outside the country, even when it is prohibited according to that states own laws?

Don't try to think logically about laws man. It'll just make your head hurt! Lets just do what we can to put our "rights" back for our children's sake.

Justin

Zach S
April 18, 2008, 08:52 AM
Say this bill goes through, it may cause a riff (and looks like it already is) concern each state's qualification process being different or more difficult. What is to stop them for pushing for a singular qualification all states use?
Not only that, think of all the places you cant carry carry. Here in NC its school property, funerals, picket lines, anywhere that charges admission, to name a few.

If a national reciprocity bill that gets passed, some states will have so many forbidden places to CC you may just be able to drive through without having to put your pistol in the trunk.

Some states have a lot of freedom despite their restrictions. If a CA resident can get his CC, he can go to a school on election day and cast his vote and CC the whole time. If this bill goes through, they might get thier panties in a bunch and add more restrictions.

XDKingslayer
April 18, 2008, 12:12 PM
XDKingslayer, it would be no different than driver's or marriage licenses. Each states requirement for those differ and are still accepted. Some states require driver's training to get a license, others don't. Some states require a waiting period on getting married and others don't. Why not a CCW?

Because there aren't politicians out there building entire campaigns around being anti-marriage or anti-driver's license.

You say they'll treat it like a marriage or drivers license and I'm saying you're a fool if you believe that. This bill can and will be used against us.

ronwill
April 18, 2008, 06:42 PM
It amazes me sometimes that when you disagree with some people you become a fool or idiot. My opinion is that national reciprocity would be a good thing. The problem is that the chance of it happening is minimal at best. If you disagree with me I still don't think your a fool or idiot. :)

Roccobro
April 18, 2008, 06:46 PM
The problem is that the chance of it happening is minimal at best. If you disagree with me I still don't think your a fool or idiot.

I think your a very wise and pragmatic man. And that's not just because I believe the same either! :D

Justin

another okie
April 18, 2008, 07:25 PM
States are not actually required to accept one another's driver's licenses. They do it to make the system work. There is a system of voluntary agreements to honor driver's licenses.

If a state started giving 9 year olds licenses, you'd see that end in a minute. Nor do they "have" to accept marriage licenses from other states. The courts have generally interpreted "full faith and credit" to mean court decisions, not licenses or permits. But there have been very few cases about it.

And there is a big honking exception, which is the "public policy" exception. If a state decision or permit violates the "public policy" of another state, the second state does not have to accept it, such as same-sex marriage or CCW permits.

brentn
April 18, 2008, 07:34 PM
eightball,

The brady campaign is not against guns, they are pro-gun-control. They want to regulate them, and I'm sure as well, have them registered. There is another campaign that wants handguns banned all together, that has a similar abbreviation.

Not that I support either, in fact I hate them, but just setting the facts straight.

SinistralRifleman
April 18, 2008, 07:43 PM
The government powerful enough to make states recognize each others CCWs, is also powerful enough to ban CCW entirely. This is a states' rights issue. I don't want the citizens of California and New York telling me I can't carry in my state, anymore than I should tell them they have to recognize my permit there. Everyone here would be going nuts if there was a national ban on CCW bill proposed, and I'm sure state's rights would be one of the arguments used.

The correct way to address this is to have laws passed on the state level recognizing any other state's permit. This is happening across the country already.

Zoogster
April 18, 2008, 07:52 PM
To play devil's advocate, would this bill violate the principle of Federalism and be just another power grab by the Feds?

I thought the same thing.

The difference with a driver's license is each state chooses to recognize them.
Often because the feds (who still tax what they wish) withold funds for road maintainence and other things if they don't meet thier desired standards.
Some states had drinking ages of 18 to purchase and consume alcohol, but with that motivation most up the legal age to 21 for example.
Some states did not even prohibit drinking and driving. I recall in some states it was legal not many years ago to drink an alcoholic beverage while driving down the road. They may have had a limit on the level of intoxication, but an open container or consuming alcohol was legal in some.

So it was not actualy federal law, but rather federal standards required to be met in order to recieve funds.
So they got around allowing the states to enact laws as they wished by mandating guidelines for funds which were returned (since they are taken in taxes from that state to begin with).


However there was a totaly seperate law passed a few years back, that which allows all LEO and retired LEO to carry regardless of state law. That is a federal law. That has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
Prior to that various states had different laws on LEO, what a LEO was, and what agencies could carry and how on and off the clock.


The pros to such a bill seem obvious. The cons however would be that a national standard would be created, and those standards would be required, or states would not qualify for some sort of funding. So states with minimal requirements could see greatly increased requirements.
It is hard to say how it could effect states that require no license at all such as Vermont and Alaska. Would they still have such funds withheld to encourage them to adopt standards, or would the fact that they didn't require a license at all not cause such standards to be imposed?

ronwill
April 18, 2008, 08:15 PM
Some say this is a states issue and I tend to disagree. It is a Constitutional issue for the RKBA. If you don't want to own a gun that's as much a right as owning a gun. The problem comes when a local government wants to say you can't carry a gun here. When a city, county or state decides to pass laws that are blatantly Anti-Constitutional then something must be done. To me it's similar to some states preemption laws where cities and counties can't pass laws overriding a state law.

TriggerMan
April 18, 2008, 10:33 PM
I have a better idea, lets just get rid of states!!!! One set of laws for everyone:D I'd like to see everyone be able to carry anytime anywhere as long as they don't have a record for violent crimes, I'd like to see the the bill pass, but I doubt it will until states like mine "Alabama" put some teeth into CCW permits, all I had to do to get one is pass a background check and fork over $30 a year, they didn't even ask if I knew how to use one.

CypherNinja
April 18, 2008, 10:46 PM
Sorry guys, I'm with Samuel Adams and Zoogster on this one.

The only 'national reciprocity' or standard I'll be truly happy to see is a SCOTUS decision stating 2A=National Vermont Carry.

EDIT: And yeah, I'm dreaming when it comes to that one. But, short of that, I'd rather see a continuation of every State serving as an example to every other State. Under this system, we have been winning and making real progress. CCW makes more and more sense as more data is collected from shall issue States, causing other states to consider the same. Reaching a national consensus by this method, is IMHO, a FAR better outcome than having a federal standard which would be vulnerable to the whims of whichever set of dorks hold office at the time.

jakemccoy
April 18, 2008, 11:01 PM
I'll provide my perspective from California, which is still part of the United States last time I checked.

I would gladly welcome a "shall issue" CCW license requirement in California. Right now, it's "may issue". In my county, that effectively means "no issue".

Vitamin G
April 18, 2008, 11:15 PM
What the Federal government can giveth, the Federal government can taketh.

(insert discussion about how the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by the government, but by The Creator, and only recognized by the government)

Wouldn't adopting this bill almost agree with the idea that the right to carry is granted by the states??

Scanr
April 19, 2008, 12:23 AM
I would love to see it, but the queen of the House will never let it come to a vote.

Samuel Adams
April 19, 2008, 12:40 AM
What the Federal government can giveth, the Federal government can taketh.

(insert discussion about how the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by the government, but by The Creator, and only recognized by the government)

Wouldn't adopting this bill almost agree with the idea that the right to carry is granted by the states??
This is probably why we don't see Dr. Paul's name on the list of co-sponsors.

ronwill
April 19, 2008, 09:01 AM
A hypothetical question for those who say this is a states issue. Let's say your state decided to call up their Guard and forcibly board them in your home, or tell you that you couldn't congregate at your favorite bar. Would you consider this a states issue? These also are protected (not granted) by the Constitution which is the law of the entire land. Ratified by the states, they are supposedly bound to follow it's guidelines. National reciprocity would have to be voted on by elected officials who supposedly speak on their constituents behalf, just as any other law passed by the Senate or Congress does.

Aguila Blanca
April 19, 2008, 01:35 PM
The pros to such a bill seem obvious. The cons however would be that a national standard would be created, and those standards would be required, or states would not qualify for some sort of funding. So states with minimal requirements could see greatly increased requirements.
It is hard to say how it could effect states that require no license at all such as Vermont and Alaska. Would they still have such funds withheld to encourage them to adopt standards, or would the fact that they didn't require a license at all not cause such standards to be imposed?
The law authorizing retired and active LEOs to carry in all states did not establish any uniform qualification standard. All it said was that the inviduals have to be qualified by their agency. Why would our CCW necessarily be any different?

Vermont is the sticky wicket. Alaska does issue CCW permits, as an option for residents who want/need one for purposes of reciprocity with other states. So Alaska wouldn't have any problems with national reciprocity. The only people left holding the bag might be Vermonters -- although depending on how the law is worded, it could also be interpreted that the other 49 states must accept that Vermont doesn't issue permits, and therefore any Vermonter can carry anywhere without a permit.

Zoogster
April 19, 2008, 04:05 PM
The law authorizing retired and active LEOs to carry in all states did not establish any uniform qualification standard. All it said was that the inviduals have to be qualified by their agency. Why would our CCW necessarily be any different?

Because being a LEO who must qualify regularly, and did so for 20 years or more if retired is seen as a standard itself.
Plus it is a segment of society general treated differently as of late (especialy since 9/11) than other citizens. I have never seen credibile anti campaigns to remove police arms for example. Most antis in fact acknowledge police need firearms. So it is hardly challenged or scrutinized.
Technicaly however the law has little constitutional merit. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and should be outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The same is not true for CCW, it would be challenged and scrutinized by opposition.
CCW would come to be viewed more like a driver's license held to national standards. It is not a seperate class of citizens being granted permanent privilidge. It is individuals that can retain a privilidge by meeting requirements and paying fees periodicly, but that privilidge goes away as soon as they fail to renew.

So even if at first it just started as a forced recognition of other state's licenses it would not be long before the federal government set minimum standards. People having the ability to purchase out of state permits would probably be one of the first things to go. Otherwise everyone would just pruchase a permit from one of the easiest states by mail if it was forced to be recognized by all other states.
You cannot get an out of state driver's license. You certainly cannot get one by mail. Within a few years I think CCW would only be available from your own state of residence if all states were forced to recognize all permits.


It would also allow a back door restriction of various firearm types down the road. I could see a bill sponsored to limit the capacity of CCW firearms for example, because nobody needs more than ___ rounds to defend themselves. How long before a member of congress sponsored a bill limiting the power of a CCW firearm? :scrutiny:
Just as there is national guidelines for maximum speed limits, national standards for DUI, national standards for vehicle emissions, safety standards for vehicles etc. Once it becomes a national program the criteria is subject to federal oversight.
The final choice is up to the state, but they always comply when funding is witheld because they don't meet the fed imposed standards for federal money.
If only certain firearms qualified, the market for others would be far less, and I think you would see the variety of firearms that did not meet those standards begin to shrink in the market.

Technicaly you can buy any car you want, you just cannot drive it on public roads. Yet how many places do you know of that sell high performance cars which are not legal for the road, and don't meet the emission standards or safety standards to be sold for use on the road? You can get them, but since they are worthless to 99.99% of the public you won't see them in most dealerships.
Handguns that did not meet the yearly increasing federal CCW requirements would likely be the same. The market for them would be small, and the market would cater to the larger segment of buyers.


I think a better thing to fight for would be some sort of "RKBA enforcement act". One that forces everyone to follow the law that already exists. The one that says "shall not be infringed" which we all just allow to be ignored at the state and federal level. You cannot get much clearer than "shall not be infringed".
Does it really just mean shall be only infringed in "reasonable" ways as decided by government? That is bascily what Mexico's says, perhaps we should just borrow thiers?

Encouraging the feds to have oversight on yet another license would be a step backwards for RKBA in the RKBA strongholds. The only people that would gain a short term benefit are those in really anti states. However the representatives of those states would quickly change that through pressure to impose national CCW standards. If they are forced to allow people from other states to walk around with guns due to an issued license, they are going to want strict guidelines for those licenses.
Do you really want anti politicians in the House and Senate imposing thier standards on CCW permits in free states?It may harm the very culture that keeps RKBA alive in America even in anti states, by reducing the freedoms in pro gun states. The RKBA strongholds would be outnumbered and outrepresented by the more populous anti states imposing such standards.
How many years do you think that culture would stay as strong as it is in really free states if they started being accustomed to such controls on a regular basis?
The result could be even stricter gun control than ever before 10+ years from now.

Wayne02
April 19, 2008, 04:39 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one.

Say this bill goes through, it may cause a riff (and looks like it already is) concern each state's qualification process being different or more difficult. What is to stop them for pushing for a singular qualification all states use?

Then, if they do that, do they use Florida as their template or Illinois/California/New York/New Jersey for their template?

CCW doesn't need this bill. Qualifications need to go away completely.
Exactly, this thing sets up the potential of a really messy situation that the antis could and would exploit, and would ultimately be a detriment to the 2A movement. My state is a "shall issue" state, and damn well better stay that way. That means "shall issue", not shall issue if you take this training or that test...

This bill opens doors we do not want open, and provides opportunities for the antis that we do want to provide them with. We must apply some critical thinking to stuff like this before just jumping on the bandwagon. Be very careful what you wish for...

mgregg85
April 19, 2008, 04:46 PM
I like the idea behind this bill but I worry about the federal government getting into CCW. If they get into regulating it now it will just make them feel like they have the power to take it away in the future.

I wish all states would just voluntarily do this and thus avoid any 10th amendment issues.

Waitone
April 19, 2008, 05:05 PM
Whatsoever the State giveth, the State can taketh away.

All hail the power of the State.

Be careful of that which you demand. You just might get it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill forces ALL states to accept CCW permits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!