Here's the bill again, up for vote soon. Let's hope it actually passes.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7072
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7072
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
National Reciprocity for CCW
- Thread starter insanebikerboy
- Start date
Bloomberg would lose his shit. I really hope it passes!
Interesting. Don't know what it's chances of passing are ( probably slim to none, IMO), but it would certainly make things easier for those of us with a CCW. For purposes of esoteric political debate, how do some of you "traditional" conservatives, who it would seem are the most ardent supporters of such a bill, square this in terms of the "states rights" argument that you apply to so many other political issues? Discuss.
Brett
Brett
Brett, I think this bill has come up in various flavors for years so we can obviously see it doesn't have a great track record.
As for your states rights question, it's an interesting one as I'm a big fan of states rights over the federal government. That said, the logic and reasoning behind the bill is that it's similar to driver's licensing, wedding licenses, etc. So, I can agree with this bill in that sense.
My thought is if it did pass, the license rules would be similar to drivers' licenses, with the grace period and such if you move to a new state. That way the states still have some regulation on the individual training requirements.
As for your states rights question, it's an interesting one as I'm a big fan of states rights over the federal government. That said, the logic and reasoning behind the bill is that it's similar to driver's licensing, wedding licenses, etc. So, I can agree with this bill in that sense.
My thought is if it did pass, the license rules would be similar to drivers' licenses, with the grace period and such if you move to a new state. That way the states still have some regulation on the individual training requirements.
I'll buy that, but I can see things getting complicated. Every state has driver's licenses with very similar requirements, but not every state issues CCW and many are extremely restrictive. If this law were to pass, I could see citizens exercising their reciprocity "rights" having trouble with local LE, even though the law would be on their side.
I think it's a good idea, but the implementation seems wrought with peril.
Brett
Your permit would only be valid in a state that already issues carry permits to its citizens. You'd automatically be granted the privileges of an 'unrestricted' permit in that state, and be subject to its rules and restrictions.
In most 'shall issue' states, this just keeps out-of-state permit holders from having to apply for a non-resident permit---which is really just a formality, anyway. If this bill passes, it will only create a problem in the restrictive 'may issue' states like NY, CA, NJ, where you need to be a celebrity or politically connected to receive an unrestricted carry permit. These states would either have to eliminate their 'unrestricted carry' permits and only issue hunting/fishing or target permits, or accept this law and allow out-of-state permit holders to carry freely.
This is specifically what I had in mind when I said it would be complicated. Places like this would have to be drug kicking and screaming. Probably a moot point, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.
Brett
It WILL have trouble getting past the Senate. Having said that, I think it is a good idea. There will always be a few (very few in this case), who will either ignore the facts of law or try to get around them. But I think in this age of the internet most CCW holders, having had to undergo the training and testing to secure said CCW, are aware of the requirements and would take the trouble to find out what is required of them.
We travel extensively as full time RV'ers and I am always aware of what the local requirements may be. It is easy with publications like this one.
We travel extensively as full time RV'ers and I am always aware of what the local requirements may be. It is easy with publications like this one.
As a proponent for states' rights, I would have to argue that this bill shouldn't be passed. Though, as a (little l) libertarian, I would argue that there shouldn't have to be concealed carry permits issued either. One should be allowed to carry a weapon on their person if they wish without the state placing unneeded restrictions.
This bill shouldn't even be necessary. The 2nd amendment makes this superfluous. States do not have the right regulate what free speech is, what freedom of religion means, or what constitutes suffrage; why do they get to pick and choose what "to keep and bear arms" means.
They often put limits and regulations on 'the right of the people to peaceably assemble'. Ever heard of a parade permit?
And the Supreme Court even said as much in District of Columbia v. Heller:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Written by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Parade permits? If that were true, the fuckheads from Westboro wouldn't be allowed to march around whenever and wherever they wanted, spewing hatred. How are the states coming along on banning them? Oh yea, not well.
I can take paragraphs from Supreme Court decision out of context, too. Scalia made it clear the prohibition against taking a gun on federal property, or school building was not changing based on their decision in the Heller case. Nothing about whether or not a state can deny someone the right to carry concealed. McDonald v Chicago makes it clear the right to keep and bear arms applies to all of the states, making gun laws that restrict the right to own a gun of common type and use unconstitutional.
What's your point?
DC lost in Heller, and Chicago lost to McDonald, by the way. By the way they spin it, liberals still believe they won.
I can take paragraphs from Supreme Court decision out of context, too. Scalia made it clear the prohibition against taking a gun on federal property, or school building was not changing based on their decision in the Heller case. Nothing about whether or not a state can deny someone the right to carry concealed. McDonald v Chicago makes it clear the right to keep and bear arms applies to all of the states, making gun laws that restrict the right to own a gun of common type and use unconstitutional.
What's your point?
DC lost in Heller, and Chicago lost to McDonald, by the way. By the way they spin it, liberals still believe they won.
Laws are being looked at to limit their protests while attempting to stay within the bounds of the Supreme Court's decision. And while not a state, a quick Google search found the DC government site that links you to all the permits necessary to parade, protest, auction and bingo the night away. And yes, parade permits are constitutional.
Out of context? That part of the decison is about as explicit as one can get that says there can be laws made to limit the right to 'keep and bear arms'. It answers your question/complaint, they get to do it because they can, legally.
Try getting a gun in DC.
Your basic conservative will point to Article IV of the almighty Constitution. Sections 1 and 2 are on point.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is a lot of case law on these two points. It isn't exactly consistent and there remains debate. This is why Congress felt it necessary to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, so states that rejected homosexual marriage would not have to honor gay marriages performed in other states. In the case of CCW, the bill in question would just affirm a reasonable reading of Article IV of the Constitution and force other sates to honor CCW from another.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is a lot of case law on these two points. It isn't exactly consistent and there remains debate. This is why Congress felt it necessary to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, so states that rejected homosexual marriage would not have to honor gay marriages performed in other states. In the case of CCW, the bill in question would just affirm a reasonable reading of Article IV of the Constitution and force other sates to honor CCW from another.