National Right-to-Carry legislation moving forward - Will it succeed?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...to-the-bottom-on-concealed-handguns-view.html

View: Congress Wants a Race to Bottom on Guns

By the Editors Jul 25, 2011 7:01 PM CT 7 Comments


Congress is moving ahead on legislation designed to increase the number of handguns on American streets and lower the standards imposed on those who wish to conceal and carry those weapons.

I know some want this and some don't. I'm not looking for opinions on whether or not National Right-to-Carry is right or wrong, I'm asking, whether or not you you think this legislation will pass.


.

 

[Danb1215]

Talk about an unbiased source. I don't see national carry passing for a while, too many big states with a lot of pull that want to keep their muddy may issue status quo.

 

[dec41971]

So..

The Police Foundation says the bill, if enacted, will endanger the lives of police officers, who would have no way of distinguishing legitimate out-of-state gun permits from fraudulent ones.

Wow, don't they have records in every state of licensees? How do the cops distinguish real driving licenses and plates from bogus ones since there is no one standard fits all? Well do the same for CCWs. Is that really so hard to figure out?

 

[RevDerb]

I suspect that it will pass -eventually. But I don't think that I favor it since it continues on that slippery slope of quashing states rights.


How do you eat an elephant - right?

 

[Bonesinium]

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't look at this like it is "quashing" states rights as much as it is giving more rights to the people. Try and look at the positive side.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, there are states' rights issues involved -- who gets to decide what standards a state's checks and issuing process must meet to be nationally recognized, for example -- but the OP did ask us to limit this discussion to ONLY whether or not it will pass.

 

[Horny Toad]

I can't imagine it even coming close to passing, and if it did, do you think for a moment the President would sign it?

 

[Axel Larson]

It would be amazing if we could get constitutional carry nation wide. I think they are talking about permits though, annoying but I will live if it passes. It would be nice to be able to carry a gun any where in the nation. Yet I do no think it will pass for a while.

 

[Art Eatman]

It might conceivably pass in the House. Odds are against it in the Senate, I imagine. And there's no way that this particular president would sign it.

 

[Kendal Black]

I don't think it will pass this time, but I think this is most likely in the nature of a trial balloon, and we will see the bill again when conditions are more favorable for its passage.

 

[NMBrian]

Some of the gun friendly states will undoubtedly lose some privileges while making the new law, simply to appease the more anti gun states.

for example, I can carry in city parks here in New Mexico, im guessing Illinois, New York, and California will fight against that.

Just something to think about, are you willing to give up one or two privileges to make CCW easier across state lines?

 

[Sam1911]

Some of the gun friendly states will undoubtedly lose some privileges while making the new law, simply to appease the more anti gun states.

I don't think any of these proposals would make the carry LAWS the same in every state. Just that each state would need to recognize carry permits from other states.

In fact, the bill seems to specifically say the carrier would have to abide by the laws of the state they're carrying IN.

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

SO THIS ISN'T A NATIONAL CARRY BILL, per se. It is simply a bill to streamline reciprocity between states -- that do allow concealed carry. So, Illinois is still out in the cold. And the residents of MD, NJ, HI, and other tightly-restricted "may-issue" type places would be as well.

 

[Husker_Fan]

I'd rather it not pass. CCW laws have come a long way in the last twenty years and keep getting better.

If we let a current Congress mandate national carry, we also let a later Congress mandate a national ban. Let's leave it in the states where it belongs.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I'm very skeptical...

 

[Dnaltrop]

National Reciprocity? Woo!

Won't happen but it's a nice daydream. I don't travel out of state much, but Washington is just a missed-exit before the river away, and I'd love to be able to depend on my Oregon CHP there without the extra cost of more cards.

I won't hold my breath... but it's nearly time to get my Utah card in the interim.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The bill wouldn't change individual state laws. It would simply treat a ccw like a driver's license- meaning a state would honor your right to carry provided you abide by their laws. Everyone relax.

 

[thedrewcifur]

i'm for constitutional carry nationwide. and no gun free zones. and allowing all but violent felons to own guns. and required firearms training to graduate high school.

 

[Danb1215]

This has nothing to do with constitutional carry, it's a national reciprocity bill. Even still lets see some demographics.
California-37.6 million people
New York-19.4 million people
New Jersey-8.8 million people
Massachusetts-6.5 million people
Maryland-5.8 million people
The ridiculous may issue/no issue states unfortunately aren't tiny irrelevant states. If the thought of state residents carrying in these states nauseates lawmakers there, how do you bet they feel about out of state residents carrying.

Then factor in the states that although they are shall issue have stupid training/qualification requirements or an inordinate number of gun free zones. In no particular order Michigan, Ohio, NC, Nevada, and Texas come to mind, although there are more I'm sure I've missed.
There's just too much opposition out there. The most likely outcome is that states laws continue to relax, but as far as federal law is concerned, I won't hold my breath.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Some of the gun friendly states will undoubtedly lose some privileges while making the new law, simply to appease the more anti gun states.

Um, no. What you mean to say is that some of the gun friendly states will lose rights that we have fought hard to protect, so that you, who have not fought so hard, can gain what you perceive to be 'privileges.'

If you think that national reciprocity can happen without the federal government dictating the criteria for issuing permits, I think you are a bit naïve.

As another poster commented, it will be just like driver's licenses, which are all just about the same, nationally, and conform to unofficial federal standards (and if they don't, no federal money for you).

 

[Sam1911]

Um, no. What you mean to say is that some of the gun friendly states will lose rights that we have fought hard to protect, so that you, who have not fought so hard, can gain what you perceive to be 'privileges.'

Still no. This bill doesn't make ANYONE tighten up their rules.

It would make states that do issue, but which issue conditional permits, or limited permits, consider a licensed carrier from any other state as having equal "privileges" as the LEAST restricted license issued to a resident of that state. That could be sort of a forced loosening of standards.

There is nothing here which would dictate how a state chooses to license or what rights or privileges their licensed individuals have.

 

[CapnMac]

There is nothing here which would dictate how a state chooses to license or what rights or privileges their licensed individuals have.

Exactly. The onus would still be on the individual to know the local laws. Much the same way that not every state allows right turn on red when driving--yet out of state DL are recognized.

The current political scene does not suggest this gets out of committee (unless/except in the smoke and fury of the debt/budget meleé).

Being signed by present administration if enacted seems unlikely, too.

Now, philosophically, I still think the best route for this is actually call it the Improved FOPA, and rescind FOPA entire as part of it. But, that is because the present FOPA mandates disarmed travel with arms (and also the Hughes and Lautenberg foolishness).

Titling legislation has become a key part of getting it enacted, so using Firearms Owners Protection seems apt. That, or some version of "National Uniform Public Safety."

That's my 2¢; you'll still need another $3 for coffee.

 

[Daemon688]

They need to attach it as a rider to a debt ceiling increase that will get signed by the president. Then we'll have our national reciprocity!

 

[hermannr]

This bill is to make CPL's (or whatever you want to call them) recognized in the same manner you drivers license is recognized.

If a state allows any carry for their own citizens, they must recognize another states right to carry permit.

It would force the states to recognize another states license to carry. The states that "may issue" will be the most impacted, along with states like OR that do not recognize any license other than their own..

I am not sure IL or DC will be able to bypass this as I am sure the "elite" can get a permit to carry, even there. If nothing else, the police in IL carry, so?????

Yes, it is a state's rights problem...do we really want teh federal government involved??? however, In this case, as written and as I understand, I do not have a problem...it would treat the license to carry just like any other license that is recognized (think drivers license)

Will it pass? It just may. It could be a trading item for a vote on the budget problems.

 

[Dnaltrop]

The down side, as an Oregonian, is that we don't get recognized by any other state as well.

Lots of UT classes locally at least, but that entire industry of local classes for the Utah permit will die overnight. I'd feel bad for the local instructors making their ends meet by offering this service. Some sacrifices have to be made.

We also have to pay $10 for the "free" check when purchasing here.

 

[NMBrian]

Um, no. What you mean to say is that some of the gun friendly states will lose rights that we have fought hard to protect, so that you, who have not fought so hard, can gain what you perceive to be 'privileges.'

Thats a pretty LOW road statement about someone you have never met.....

Sorry I used the word privileges and not rights. Whats the weather like way up on your high horse?