House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

[Don H]

Originally Posted by JimPage

I got that email too. I don't agree with the NRA on this one. Yes, NAGR, aka Dudley, sent some wrong info, the crux was ok. I still maintain that the NRA and other proponents of this bill don't understand how Federal intrusion can happen. They haven't looked at history.

Nothing that the Fed has become involved in has not been touched by federal rules, intervention, etc. Just look at Education, at first it was just to give financial aid to state education fund. Now they impose "Federal Standards" on education across the country. Same has happened to the Highway safety that was to be funded by the US gasoline tax. Sounds simple. But now after a few decades, Feds set standards for highways or withold fund to states to force compliance. The list goes on and on.

Nothing escapes Fed rules once the Feds get their nose under the tent.

Jim, that sentiment would also apply to the bill that the GOA is pushing since they both invite federal intrusion into this issue.

[Patriot86]

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...l-moving-along


Out of Committee and the alarmism is already starting big time....
From page 2 of the article

The version approved Tuesday by the Judiciary Committee would prohibit states from requiring visitors to abide by the host state's laws defining who is eligible to possess or carry concealed firearms.

For instance, Florida may reject concealed-carry permits for convicted felons or people convicted of violent misdemeanors within three years of their application; people with a record of drug or alcohol abuse, or with multiple arrests for those charges; people found mentally incompetent; people who are physically incapable of handling a firearm safely or who fail to prove proficiency with a gun; and people who have been issued a domestic violence injunction.

Yet under Franks' amended version, Florida would have to recognize an out-of-state permit granted to people with such histories if the other state did not specifically ban the permit for those conditions.

No surprise from the ole Gainesville Sun trying to frighten people into thinking the mentally ill, drug offenders who are also Felons from other states will be CC'ing in FL soon.

I am far from an expert on CC laws in each state, but I would imagine the VAST MAJORITY ban CC by Felons, The mentally ill/defective, Drug users or convicted of some sort of violent crime.

[oneounceload]

States that stop issuing concealed carry permits will ultimately be forced by litigation to endorse open carry or concealed carry without a permit. Or both. Suspension of permitting simply gains them some ground in a battle they are destined to lose.

Based on WHAT? - No they don't - all they have to do is make it so expensive and arduous

[Patriot86]

Never a dull moment, waiting for MSNBC to start covering this...

[C0untZer0]

I don't think a simple law carries enough weight. I think we need some over-arching principle. Something like a constitutional amendment.

It's like Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964... I mean it's good and all, but it's not exactly the Equal Rights Amendment.

We need something like that only pertaining to firearms, y'know being able to procure, transport, posess and carry firarms. Something that would apply to the entire United States of America.

[Chaz88]

I don't think a simple law carries enough weight. I think we need some over-arching principle. Something like a constitutional amendment.

I think we have that in the second amendment but we still have all these problems anyway.

[Patriot86]

@ Count I agree 100% of you but getting 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment would be very difficult.

Currently 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats as Governors. That means you would need all Republicans to co-operate and you would need 9 Democrats to defect OR the required state house/senate majorities to override a veto correct? I don't have the time to look this up but I can imagine more states right now with Republican Governors do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures than states with Democrat Governors that do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures. Bottom line, numbers are not favorable and probably will be less favorable due to various demographic shifts as we advance further into the century.


Edit: Had a second to look some things up in regards to who might "turn coat" and support a Pro-Gun constitutional amendment: Might IMO get the Governors of Colorado, Arkansas , Kentucky , Minnesota(long shot), Missouri, Montana and West Virginia. The others are strictly speaking in Anti-Gun Territory. That is 7 of the 9 needed, considering you may have republicans defecting the numbers are even worse.

[Chaz88]

I think it is a mistake for gun owners to continually divide second amendment issues into Democrat and Republican or conservative and liberal. It alienates some supporters of the RTKABA and stereotypes gun owners in ways that do not necessarily hold true.

[Patriot86]

@Chaz: I agree with you, you have a good number of pro 2A Democrats and anti 2A Republicans, but IN GENERAL terms and I am talking broad general terms Republican politicians have had more Pro 2A records than Democrats as of late. Just looking at the simple numbers of who is the Governor of where and how many in broad terms the numbers would not look good IMO for passing and ratifying any kind of constitutional amendment that is pro-gun. As I listed above, you have 7 Democratic Governors that simply due to what states where they live to would have a semi decent chance of supporting this. Republican or Democrat I can't see the Governors in places like NJ, MA, CA or NY to name a few supporting anything like what count was talking about simply because it would be political suicide. I will eat my hat the day someone wins Governor of NY on a strongly Pro-2A platform.

[therealdeal]

I have to agree with Chaz. I also think it will be a good thing someday. There will be at the very least less of a gray area where people are getting prosecuted out-of-state as well as other examples. People will understand the laws more, and I believe this will make people respect CCW more and legitimize it(referring mostly to people that don't exercise their rights as much for whatever reason).

[batjka]

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Faithe and Credit clause.
It doesn't undermine State Rights as the CCP holders will have to abide by the local laws and ordinances. So if you're visiting a ban state, your mags will have to be 10 rd capacity maximum.

I would even support having "temporary visitors' CCPs". For example, you visit a state, you go to an office, show your home state's CCP and are issued a temp card on the spot for a small fee. This way states can make a little revenue and everyone's happy. At the same time, this would eliminate all kinds of confusion in case of LE contact.

So, what are you guys up in arms about? Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

[oneounceload]

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws.

Where do you think it will end up? In Federal Court

Do you REALLY think the anti-gun meccas of NYC, DC, NJ, etc. are going to roll over and give up?

So, if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by batjka

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

Easy. I already have an Amendment that says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why would I want to invite the feds to go meddling here?

Originally Posted by batjka

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Face and Credit clause.

I disagree. It does invite the feds to start setting standards. If it passes, it won't be long before some representative says, "Wait. We require training in our state, and we don't want guys from states that don't require training running around totin' guns in our towns. Let's set some minimum training standards."

Further, while I agree that such a law might well be constitutional, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Originally Posted by batjka

Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

No, it won't. The way this bill is written, the freedom to use my CHCL will only be extended to those parts of the country that do not prohibit concealed carry. Thirty-some-odd of those already recognize my CHCL.

[BGutzman]

The cases where the legislature can leave its fingers off anything once it touches them are few and far between. If this passes this will start as something good and immediately turn to something bad... Absolute power corrupts absolutely.....

[batjka]

[/QUOTE] So if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules[/QUOTE]

That is exactly correct. States are not forced to adopt a different standard or adopt to other states' laws. You will have to adapt to the destination state's CC policies/gun laws. This does not violate anything.

What NY and NJ argue is their business. They will lose in Supreme Court. In the mean time, one will have an opportunity to protect himself while traveling throughout the country, with exception of IL.

[CowTowner]

So, if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules.

A different analogy
Your current state's driver's license is valid in every state that issues driver's licenses. If you drive from Florida to NYC, don't you have to follow the laws in GA., S.C., N.C., VA., MD., N.J. or PA., and N.Y. depending on your route?
Of course you do. This would work the same way.

[secret_agent_man]

No they don't - all they have to do is make it so expensive and arduous

The states will be unable to do that under either strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny. Under either, the burden of obtaining a permit cannot be anything more than incidental. Much like completing the current federal background check. A few clicks of the mouse, and you got it.

[therealdeal]

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Faithe and Credit clause.
It doesn't undermine State Rights as the CCP holders will have to abide by the local laws and ordinances. So if you're visiting a ban state, your mags will have to be 10 rd capacity maximum.

I would even support having "temporary visitors' CCPs". For example, you visit a state, you go to an office, show your home state's CCP and are issued a temp card on the spot for a small fee. This way states can make a little revenue and everyone's happy. At the same time, this would eliminate all kinds of confusion in case of LE contact.

So, what are you guys up in arms about? Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

I agree with this completely, but the only way to find out who wins this bet is to see what happens when it happens. People are scared of change; in This Case the fed gov't can help. It doesn't mean all of a sudden or after some stupid lawsuit people in AK or TX aren't gonna be able to CCW in peace! It will allow them to go to NYC and carry CCW like law-abiding citizens whether NY likes it or not. The ones aganst it will be the states agnst CCW. Tough.

Easy. I already have an Amendment that says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why would I want to invite the feds to go meddling here?

Well Spats, many states already meddle in this issue. Let's move past this together the best we can because it is not gonna change in one form or another.

[alloy]

They could try leading by example, if they want trust. But this was less than 2 weeks ago.
Apples to oranges maybe, but the fact is...DC has issues of it's own, yet it's home to the Federal Government and the Supreme Court....and they don't want guns there, nor understand the 2a in a manner that I'm comfortable with. How about removing restrictions @ post offices, to show how much they care.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gun-amendment/

[motorhead0922]

In the Washington Times article posted by alloy, Trey Dowdy appears to be in favor of uniform national gun laws:

Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee with oversight of D.C. affairs, voted “present” on Mr. Gohmert’s amendment.

“It was a combination of my preference to deal with D.C. gun laws in another vehicle and a general belief that the Second Amendment is just as important as the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights and should not be subject to the vagaries of 50 different interpretations — 51 if you include the District,” he said.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by therealdeal

I agree with this completely, but the only way to find out who wins this bet is to see what happens when it happens.

That's a little like saying "the only way to know what's in the bill is to pass it."

Originally Posted by therealdeal

People are scared of change; in This Case the fed gov't can help.

It can help, but I don't think it will help.

Originally Posted by therealdeal

Well Spats, many states already meddle in this issue. Let's move past this together the best we can because it is not gonna change in one form or another.

Sooo, . . many states already meddle in my 2A right, so I should just suck it up and invite the feds to do the same thing?

No, thank you. I do not want the Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen from Illinois, New York, New Jersey and California to have a chance to set standards for Arkansas' concealed carry laws. And it sets the stage for people in the restrictive jurisdictions to have to fend off limitations to their RKBA on both the federal and state levels.

No, thank you.

[Patriot86]

uniform national gun laws

Those words right there chill me, because it is more likely as times go on for "national gun laws" to become like NJ rather than say Texas. National CCW reciprocity I think is where it should stop, Like others have said your drivers licence is good in all 50 states so should your CCW Permit. let the courts decide about AWB's HGB's and the rest.

[icedog88]

Def in favor of this as I live in CT,work in RI, and family in Mass. My carry permit stops at the border, so I only have the right to protect myself with a handgun in my state? In the words of Iron Mike Tyson,"That's Ludicrous!". RI, and Mass don't recognize my permit and to get a carry permit in those states is damn nigh impossible. So from my vantage point, I hope it passes as is.

[therealdeal]

How about removing restrictions @ post offices, to show how much they care.

Let's worry about one thing at a time. I agree w/Patriot in post 72 between yours & this one.

Spats, you give a good argument, and that's what I meant about the bet: there doesn't seem to be any clear answer. Holding on for your dear life to keep what you got in razorback country isn't helping all of the other true CCWers though // case in point: icedog post 73

...and it isn't progressing our God given rights + upholding our Constitutional rights. I have no problems with my CCW, but why shouldn't everyone be able to carry throughout the great United States of America? It should be an automatic, but legislation like this is needed to make it so.

[wally626]

So if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules

A lot of the strict permit states have fairly lenient carry laws. If you can get the permit you can carry it many more places than in some states that make it easy to get permits.

What will happen if NY is forced to accept out-of-state permits is they will start passing lots of laws to restrict carry in sensitive places. Overturning a sensitive place carry restriction would be very tough unless sensitive was so broad as to preclude carry at all.