What do you think about this proposal? Federal CCW related

[LAR-15]

Pass a law making one state's ccw laws recognized in all other states with ccw laws on the books (sorry Nebraska).

For example a lawfully licensed 30 year old female who carries in Vermont w/o a permit does not need a permit to carry in Ohio provided she is allowed by the law in her home state to carry w/o a permit, which she is.

And if a person from CA gets a permit they can carry in Arizona as long as they comply and are licensed legally under CA law.

 

[Markheck1]

Not a bad idea,

Only problem is that not all state have the same standards for CCW permits...case in point, the reason that Ohio will never honor PA's permit is that PA does not require firarms training, Florida does, that is why Florida's permit his honored in Ohio....

 

[Graystar]

It's bad law for a few reasons that have nothing to do with guns. It steps on state sovereignty, possibly violates equal protection, creates interstate issues...it would be a mess.

 

[Standing Wolf]

What the great white father giveth, the great white father taketh away.

I don't want the federal government within 25 miles of my holster. It's much more unresponsive than most states, much more likely to infringe our Second Amendment civil rights than many states.

 

[beerslurpy]

I can go almost anywhere in the country with my CCW. All this law does is put its nose in places where it doesnt belong.

 

[LiquidTension]

While I'd love to be able to carry anywhere in the country, I'm not sure I want to sacrifice states' rights to do so. Maybe do something like was done with speed limits and threaten to withhold federal funding if states don't comply with a federal recommendation? At least that way there is a way out for those states that really don't want it. Don't get me wrong, there is no excuse for not having this type of legislation, but I'd prefer that to a federal law.

 

[Flyboy]

About three months ago, I got to thinking about this. I even wrote a letter to my representative urging him to introduce a bill to enforce reciprocity. Printed it out, proofread it, and go to thinking about it. I came up with several of the issues mentioned here. I did a little soul-searching, and re-read the Constitution, and I've decided that I can send that letter in good conscience.

Here's why:
Yes, this gets the Feds into my holster. Thing is, they're already there. The Second Amendment (most definitely a federal law) puts them there. The Constitution has generally been held as binding on the states as well. This law wouldn't restrict us, it would enhance our freedom. Yes, it's a tacit admission that the states can require permits for concealed carry, but that's a debate we're not likely to win any time soon, at least not in most jurisdictions.

I also struggled with the question of states' rights. That question took a little more thought, but I decided that it, too, could be reconciled with the Constitution. I don't even have to go to the Amendments to support it; Article IV, Section One requires that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." If marriage licenses and drivers' licenses are bound by this provision, why not self-defense licenses (as galling as that term is)?

Yes, I understand the concerns expressed here, and I do sympathize with them. In this case, though, I think such a provision would be Constitutionally sound. I'd welcome any challenges to that position to find anything I might have overlooked; if you agree with me, please feel free to use my letter as a model for one of your own, if you wish. I'm not going to send it right away (I have another one going out tomorrow in support of HR 47, as discussed here, and I don't want to bring too much up at one time), but anybody who wants to do so is encouraged to.

 

[JPM70535]

All the talk about how the new law would in essence allow for carry anywhere close to Nationwide is merely pipe dream that will never come to pass as long as Gun Grabbing places like PRNY, PRNJ,PRMD, PRCA, and that bastion of liberty, the good old PRDC. I apoligize if I have slighted any other PRs, the ones listed seem to be the leading offenders.

As long as any of them can opt out of complience with the New Law (if passed), then it won't be worth a tinkers damn.

The only real solution lies in a SCOTUS ruling that 2A means what it says, that RKBA is an individual right, not a collective one and the phrase "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Anything less is not acceptable

JPM

 

[rritter]

The Second Amendment (most definitely a federal law) puts them there.

No. The Second Amendment is supposed to keep the Feds out of our holsters. It's not a federal law, it's an expression of a basic, unalienable right that the government is forbidden to interfere with. If it were followed, it would prohibit most, if not all, legislation dealing with arms.

The Feds are definitely in our holsters, but in violation of the Second Amendment, not because of it.

 

[DRZinn]

It steps on state sovereignty, possibly violates equal protection, creates interstate issues...

Not any more than drivers' licenses. I don't have my copy close, but IIRC there's a clause requiring states to recognize other states' marriages, which has extended to drivers' licenses etc. CCW wouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[Graystar]

Not any more than drivers' licenses. I don't have my copy close, but IIRC there's a clause requiring states to recognize other states' marriages, which has extended to drivers' licenses etc. CCW wouldn't be much of a stretch.

It’s a huge stretch. Driving isn’t banned in any state. And when you do drive, you must follow the laws of the state you’re in, not your home state. Same with marriage...the laws applied are from the state you’re in, not the state in which you reside.

This would be different. It would force a state to allow an activity that it has banned, effectively causing legislation from one state to be enforced in another. This cannot be.

 

[DRZinn]

making one state's ccw laws recognized in all other states with ccw laws on the books

Not where it's banned, just other states that do allow the right to be exercised.

And when you do drive, you must follow the laws of the state you’re in, not your home state. Same with marriage...the laws applied are from the state you’re in, not the state in which you reside.

Same thing would apply with CCW. You would have to have a permit obtained under the rules of your home state, which would then be recognized by any other state that allows CCW.

 

[Graystar]

Same thing would apply with CCW. You would have to have a permit obtained under the rules of your home state, which would then be recognized by any other state that allows CCW.

So in a state with no CCW at all, your license to carry wouldn't be recognized?

 

[jefnvk]

Maybe do something like was done with speed limits and threaten to withhold federal funding if states don't comply with a federal recommendation?

No, don't do something like that. All that amounts to is the government forcing you to do something, and saying you had a choice not to do that.

 

[LAR-15]

Yes it forces states WITH CCW PERMIT SCHEMES OR REQURING NO PERMITS to recognize and allow CCW holders from other states to allow those citizens to carry in their states.

Enforcing the SA EVERYWHERE.

No longer with a visitor from Vermont be denied their gun in Ohio.

"Oh look a Vermont visitor. Let's rob and kill them! They're disarmed outside Vermont."

 

[Lone_Gunman]

This is already in the US Constitution.

It is the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

[Flyboy]

rritter:

"This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
--Article VI

I'm not putting the Constitution on the same level as mere legislation; it is the law, as opposed to a law, but it is still law.

As for being "in our holsters," mandated national CCW reciprocity would effectively be an affirmation of our rights; it would require the states to abide by the Constitution. I have no philosophical objection to such things, particularly when they're in response to a specific infringement. A law forbidding carry would incur my ire, but a national CCW bill would overturn such infringing laws. It's a double-edged sword, to be sure, but, wielded correctly, it can be a wonderful tool.

Graystar:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be), but if you get married legally in one jurisdiction, then isn't your marriage valid everywhere (notwithstanding recent legislation to deny same-sex marriage)? If two people marry legally, then move to another state with a higher marriage age, is their marriage not still binding?

As to the same-sex marriage issue, several states--including Oklahoma, my own home state--recently passed legislation saying such marriages are not valid, even if entered into legally in another jurisdiction. I smell a Supreme Court case on this point. If we're wise, we'll throw our support behind the "full faith and credit" clause.

 

[Graystar]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be), but if you get married legally in one jurisdiction, then isn't your marriage valid everywhere

Yes it is. However, recognition of the validity of a person’s status is not the same as enforcing the body of laws under which the union was originally made.

Lets say you were married in Massachusetts. Under Mass law, a spouse can sue for loss of consortium. That is, if someone, say a doctor, commits some act (or through negligence) that causes the you to lose the qualities that are normally associated with married life, you can sue that person for that loss. That’s just one of the many kinds of privileges that exist under the law for married couples.

However, lets say you are traveling on vacation in a state that does *not* have such a law. Should some situation arise where you suffer such a loss, you most likely will not be able to sue for loss of consortium (you can try, but it would be far more difficult.) The privileges that were afforded to you under the marriage laws of your state do *not* travel with you. Your privileges are limited to those of the state you are currently in.

If LAR-15’s proposal were applied to marriage, then the state that you were vacationing in would be forced to recognize and enforce Mass’s loss of consortium law. Such a law violates state sovereignty by forcing state A to adhere to the laws of state B, when neither state A nor the federal government has any say in passing those laws. State A must submit to the dictations of state B.

 

[DRZinn]

It is the Full Faith and Credit Clause

That's the one. It's exactly the same as marriage laws. If you get married in one state, you're married in all states. Different states grant different privileges and responsibilities based on that mariage. Same would be true with CCW.