The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 4, 2009, 11:22 PM   #1
JasonWilliam
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2009
Posts: 142
Nationalizing concealed carry permits?

Sorry if this has been discussed before guys. By all means link me to the discussion and I'll read up.

I was at my local sporting clay club today (in California) and I caught wind of a "FairWarning Firearms Training" course coming on the 18th. This course would result in a "Utah Concealed Carry" permit, which I understand is valid in 35 states (California is not one).

The person telling me about it said there is legislation currently making its way thru the house that would nationalize these permits, meaning that a permit issued in one state would be recognized in all states. The idea behind this course is to get the Utah permit now, when the requirements are generally low, and get thru the system before the law changes and things get much more stringent and would take longer. I guess the plan is to grandfather in all state's already issued permits.

Anyone know anything about this? Maybe a link to the actual legislation in question?

Thanks guys.
JasonWilliam is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 08:35 AM   #2
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
I'd be ok with it, but watch your words...republicans hate the word nationalized, unless its something they want of course. How about a socialized carry permit.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 08:39 AM   #3
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
I'd be ok with it, but watch your words...republicans hate the word nationalized, unless its something they want of course. How about a socialized carry permit.
Socialized is a far dirtier word than nationalized...
Creature is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 08:55 AM   #4
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Thanks Creature, you beat me to it!
shortwave is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 09:39 AM   #5
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.845:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 09:45 AM   #6
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
I can think of a very real reason to be quite wary of such a law. It's quite possible, if not inevitable, that many states will stop issuing concealed carry permits altogether if they are required to honor out of state permits.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 09:46 AM   #7
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
I don't want the authors of Crap + Tax having any input or control over my CCW. The less they know about me the better, I think, to include my health history.

The idea of Holder in my back pocket is very unpleasant.

Work the states so "shall issue" becomes standard with broad reciprocity, doesn't have to be all 50 state to cover the functional travel radius of most people, but that might pose a rub for some.

Better to deal with local nitwits than DC nitwits. They aren't any smarter, but they live closer, may think a little harder before doing something really stupid.

The impact of the tax rebellion here in CA has had a big impact on how the budget deficit is being addressed, and it really started with one radio station in the LA area to give a real voice to it.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 10:12 AM   #8
ISP2605
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Posts: 954
Quote:
would nationalize these permits, meaning that a permit issued in one state would be recognized in all states.
That's not what the bill says. It will not allow concealed carry in all states. HKmp45sd posted the link to the bill.
It only allows in states that permit CCW. If a state does not allow CCW then it does not affect those states.
It does not "nationalize" anything. It still allows a state to determine if they want concealed carry or not. The CCW issuing is still done by the state not the federal government. The bill just makes it mandatory that another state with CCW licensing has to honor another states CCW licensing. If a state doesn't permit concealed carry then concealed carry will still be illegal in those states.
If you read the link you'll also note the bill has been referred to the Judiciary committee. That's where bills like this go to die. Read on who is on the committee. Not a lot of firearm supportive members.
ISP2605 is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 11:03 AM   #9
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
The legislation has been kicking around Congress for a while and doesn't seem to be getting any solid traction in any case. Certainly it doesn't seem likely to get anywhere. In any case, it's not clear to me that it would necessarily require a state that issues permits to its residents on a "may-issue" basis, or doesn't issue them to residents at all, to honor a permit issued to one of its residents by another state that issues to non-residents. Even if it were to get passed, there could be a lot of significant changes to the bill between now and then.

So, don't hold your breath.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 11:21 AM   #10
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,659
I doubt it'll happen but if it did that would be sweet. My Oregon permit is on it's way(I posted a thread about it in this section but it's not much to read)

in my opinion requiring a permit in the first place is a violation of the spirit of the second amendment and my right to defend myself. but if gun laws were they way they were suppose to be, people probably wouldn't be so scarred of guns and we wouldn't have to hide them anyway. heck I probably wouldn't need to carry anyway.
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 11:46 AM   #11
JasonWilliam
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2009
Posts: 142
Ah makes sense. Thats exactly why I asked... didn't want to go propagating incorrect info.

Thanks for the link and for explaining this guys. Much appreciated.
JasonWilliam is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 11:48 AM   #12
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
There are 4 bills pending in Congress that deal with CCW reciprocity.
H.R. 197 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (133)
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

H.R.1620 Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] (introduced 3/19/2009) Cosponsors (34)
Latest Major Action: 4/27/2009 Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

S.371 Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
Sponsor: Sen Thune, John [SD] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (22)
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.

S.845 Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
Sponsor: Sen Thune, John [SD] (introduced 4/21/2009) Cosponsors (22)
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2009 Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
H.R.1620, S.371 and S.845 are substantially identical with the exception of effective dates. These bills have separate provisions for holders of CCW licenses and people allowed to carry concealed without licenses (VT carry). These bills allow carry subject to local state laws on "specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." Thus, the bills might not (or might) extend to states that totally prohibit concealed carry.

H.R.197 only covers holders of CCW licenses, but provides a specific list of prohibited places for carrying in states that do not issue CCW licenses. A third of the members of the House are co-sponsors for H.R.197.

As pointed out by fiddletown, non-resident CCW licenses are not specifically addressed by the bills and might not qualify under the language in the bills.

Last edited by gc70; July 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 12:50 PM   #13
YodaMage
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 38
Very interesting. It seems somewhat a conditional view of states rights. States should have the right to apply the second amendment as liberally as they choose and other states should lose the right to enforce their own interpretation and enforce their own fire arms laws if more restrictive than their neighbor?

For the record, as a NY gun owner in by far the worst county in the state, I have issues with my area. That said, I'm not sure that here in NY we'd favor applying the laws from places such as Texas nor be bound to respecting them. Seems a slippery slope to then be applied to all laws of the land doesn't it?

The only way I see this working is where a strong general consensus can be formed and laws generally federalized/standardized. Otherwise, as many states lose their rights as others gain. I don't see this happening with firearms.
YodaMage is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 01:34 PM   #14
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
For the record, as a NY gun owner in by far the worst county in the state, I have issues with my area. That said, I'm not sure that here in NY we'd favor applying the laws from places such as Texas nor be bound to respecting them.
The bills that have been proposed would not apply the laws of other states to NY, but would require NY to recognize CCW licenses from other states on the same terms as NY CCW licenses. Only in Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not issue any CCW licenses, would state law really be totally replaced, and then only for out-of-state CCW license holders.

For the record, I am against this type of legislation because the only federal authority for such legislation lies in the Full Faith and Credit provision of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution. I consider it bad precedent to require all states to honor potentially all of the licensing actions (i.e. doctors, lawyers, plumbers, etc.) of any other state. I, too, favor concensus among the states, such as is the case for drivers' licenses.

Last edited by gc70; July 5, 2009 at 01:44 PM.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 03:01 PM   #15
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
It sounds good but I don't like it.

It sets a bad precedent for the exercise of more federal power.

People love federal power being used for things they like but then they cry and moan when it is used for things they don't.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 03:56 PM   #16
YodaMage
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 38
Exactly. Something like this would create an interesting precedence which would extend well beyond gun law. When looking at such issues, it is interesting to use extremes to understand impacts.

-TX passes a law that CCW permits can be issued same day with nothing more than a photo ID...so those folks can travel to all 49 with that CCW honored.

-PA decides to lower the driving age to 9, so are those drivers licenses to be honored in the 49 other states?

-CA decides to legalize all narcotics, so what exactly is the impact in the rest of the country? Is possession then legal, but not use? Use legal? Possession and use legal but not purchasing or distribution?

-OH decided to issues commercial fishing licenses in the Great Lakes without rules or Quota, so how does that apply the the waters of surrounding states?

The trick to 'States Rights' is that is does not infringe on the rights of the other states in application.



And I realize that that the laws of the venue carried in are applicable, but the issuing criteria would not be, hence my statement of applying laws from outside jurisdictions. Maybe:

Quote:
I'm not sure that here in NY we'd favor applying the laws from places
was not as clear as it could have been.
YodaMage is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 05:01 PM   #17
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
-TX passes a law that CCW permits can be issued same day with nothing more than a photo ID...so those folks can travel to all 49 with that CCW honored.
Works for me. I like the concept that you don't need licenses to excercise rights.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 05:46 PM   #18
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
I for one have never liked the idea of a national CCW. Too much power to the Fed who could then revoke it. The way it is now is cumbersome and slow to implement but will also be slower and much more difficult to dismantle later on. So, I say leave it the way it is and pressure your reps to gratn reciprocity to all states for CCW.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 05:52 PM   #19
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
Wny on Earth would someone want the federal government in charge of carry permits?
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 06:20 PM   #20
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Wny on Earth would someone want the federal government in charge of ANYTHING?
Fixed that for ya. I am 99.94% against almost any Federal law, especially one dealing with guns. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
PT111 is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 07:02 PM   #21
patriotthad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2009
Posts: 101
Its already there. Read the 14th ammendment.
patriotthad is offline  
Old July 5, 2009, 07:47 PM   #22
.50FAN
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2008
Posts: 20
Do you "carry" one in your vehicle??

A copy of the U.S. Constitution, that is. SHOW IT TO LEO AS YOU HAND OVER YOUR PINK-LICENSE. Have the page and article highlighted pointing out the 2d amendment. We already have our "permit", our God-given RIGHT to "keep and bear." Why not seriously push HARD for states-wide recognition of our rights?? We need several Apple-seed conventions (maybe an on-line course) in EXACTLY what the Constitution means. It DOESN'T mean that any admin. can take over General Motors, by the way. Arms manufacturers may be next. Just my $0.02
.50FAN is offline  
Old July 6, 2009, 04:39 PM   #23
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
SHOW IT TO LEO AS YOU HAND OVER YOUR PINK-LICENSE. Have the page and article highlighted pointing out the 2d amendment. We already have our "permit", our God-given RIGHT to "keep and bear."
Drive to Washington DC, get pulled over carrying a handgun and see how well this works out for you.

Quote:
Why not seriously push HARD for states-wide recognition of our rights??
Because the federal government would control it and they pretty much screw up everything they control.

Also because my STATE representatives will talk to me on the telephone. My FEDERAL representatives give me form letters in the mail. I'd rather have someone I can talk to making my CCW laws instead of Diane Feinstein.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old July 6, 2009, 05:52 PM   #24
.50FAN
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2008
Posts: 20
Try reading Amendment "X", as in TENTH.

Then read it again, and again, until it is memorized. "The powers not delegated to The United States ((capitalization in original)), nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, ((Caps mine) OR TO THE PEOPLE." "...not delegated to the United States..." includes the God-given right of amendment II. I don't have the $$$ to challenge D.C., but Heller et al did!! Because 2A was right, directly to the core. The Civil Rights Movement didn't run on $$$, it ran on PEOPLE who were pi$$ed enough to march. How do we get 90,000,000 gun owners mobilized before it is too late? How do we get them to realize that "it's too late" is right around the corner? "" .....My FEDERAL representatives give me form letters in the mail. I'd rather have someone I can talk to making my CCW laws...." How long have you parked on their door-step? We are MANY; we need to organize like ACORN, but for Constitutional reasons. Not enough are aware, and some don't have the guts. (Don't take that personally; I don't know you.)
.50FAN is offline  
Old July 6, 2009, 06:23 PM   #25
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
We are MANY; we need to organize like ACORN, but for Constitutional reasons. Not enough are aware, and some don't have the guts. (Don't take that personally; I don't know you.)
You forgot a couple of very large groups standing in the way. The "I don't care" group. The "sensible gun laws" group. The "absolutely no one but military and police need guns" group. The "I've got mine, so screw you" group.

Of the 300,000,000 Americans in this country, only 3-4 million even bother to sign up for the NRA (or your favorite group is you hate the NRA). It is remarkable that with that few numbers, the NRA has the clout it does.

The difference between ACORN and the NRA is that the NRA is a homegrown group seeking to protect Constitutional rights and promote the safe use of firearms while ACORN is a group seeking to soak up as much federal money as possible for its leaders and to use Race and prejudice to elect government officials that will give them even more money and power.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12687 seconds with 7 queries