1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National permit recognition gains support

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LAR-15, Feb 15, 2006.

  1. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Senior Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    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    COSPONSORS(18), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)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
  2. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Senior Member

    May 5, 2004

    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?
  3. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Senior Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    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
  4. fantacmet

    fantacmet Member

    Jan 30, 2006
    Portland Oregon.
    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
  5. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Senior Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    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
  6. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Senior Member

    Oct 11, 2003
    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.
  7. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Senior Member

    May 5, 2005
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Feds have no place in CCW.

    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.
  8. Kodiaz

    Kodiaz member

    Nov 13, 2005
    Palm Beach County
    Yeah well I won't even say it.
  9. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    United Socialist States of Obama
    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.
  10. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Nov 8, 2004
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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.
  11. Desertdog

    Desertdog Senior Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Ridgecrest Ca
    From my NRA-ILA report today they state;
    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."
  12. wally

    wally Senior Member

    Jan 2, 2004
    Houston, Tx
    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.

  13. RealGun

    RealGun Senior Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Upstate SC
    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.


    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.

    H. R. 4547

    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.

    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,



    6 (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United
    7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C
    8 the following:
    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-
  14. wally

    wally Senior Member

    Jan 2, 2004
    Houston, Tx
    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.

  15. Highland Ranger

    Highland Ranger Senior Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    New Jersey Highlands
    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?
  16. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Senior Member

    Jul 19, 2004

    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.
  17. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    United Socialist States of Obama
    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.
  18. Old Dog

    Old Dog Senior Member

    Aug 11, 2004
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    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 ...
  19. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Senior Member

    Oct 11, 2003
    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.
  20. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Jan 31, 2004
    Florida, CSA
    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.

Share This Page