BATTLEGROUND: Concealed carry debate heating up nationally, locally

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 14 September, 2011 | Dave Workman

[marktwain]

Days after a federal judge ruled in a New York case that Empire State residents do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed handguns in public, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee yesterday took up the debate over whether states should be required to recognize and honor valid concealed carry permits or licenses issued by other states.

This would make Washington’s concealed pistol license valid across the nation, an advantage that no citizen from any state currently enjoys, and likewise, licenses and permits from other states would be honored in the Evergreen State, just like a driver’s license.

Over the past two days, this column has explored why people believe they carry defensive firearms, and why they believe they have that right and responsibility. The discussions are still going on at Defensive Carry, Seattle Guns, Wa-Guns, Hunting-Washington, Open Carry, Northwest Firearms and Gun Rights Media. In an interview with NRA News, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, echoed the sentiments of scores of gun owners who continue responding to this column’s Monday questionnaire:

Days after a federal judge ruled in a New York case that Empire State residents do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed handguns in public, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee yesterday took up the debate over whether states should be required to recognize and honor valid concealed carry permits or licenses issued by other states.

This would make Washington’s concealed pistol license valid across the nation, an advantage that no citizen from any state currently enjoys, and likewise, licenses and permits from other states would be honored in the Evergreen State, just like a driver’s license.

[grobdriver]

Days after a federal judge ruled in a New York case that Empire State residents do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed handguns in public

Sucks to live there...

[reefdiver]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The founders of this country could not have been more clear

[no-to-illegals]

(imho) once a citizen applies for a permit to purchase a firearm, and receives said permit, that citizen should be allowed to carry anywhere, anytime concealed. I prefer protection from criminals who will not apply for a permit and will carry concealed (in violation of the laws). There has been and will continue to be incidences of (if) a law-abiding citizen had been carrying, a criminal possibly would have been stopped before doing the damage that particular criminal has done after the crime has been committed (if) there had been equally an armed citizen there. Firearms laws are not observed by criminals. Why do lawmakers not understand? Maybe lawyers need the money from different sources to make a living?

[USS Alaska]

Days after a federal judge ruled in a New York case that Empire State residents do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed handguns in public

A few years ago, I took my family to see the Rockettes at Radio City and to visit Ground Zero.

I knew the law in NY, and I know the laws of self preservation and so I had my little friend with me.

If I really need protection I don't want to be buried, with my protection unloaded and locked in the trunk of my car.

Ya pays your nickle and ya takes your chances.

[grobdriver]

I knew the law in NY, and I know the laws of self preservation and so I had my little friend with me.

Uncommon common sense, from a... bubblehead?

[trapped_in_LA]

I really hate this election year crap, they have no intention of actually passing this, sure it may get out of the house but will fail in the Senate, just like the last pro-gun bill they passed during the last election year cycle for making it easier to get a gun in Washington DC. If they were really serious they’d get rid of all the unconstitutional laws that are on the Federal books but they don’t even go there, not even during an election year. And they could do it just like they did with the addition of DV to the list of things that will get you banned from owning a gun for life, by attaching it to something that the President really wants/needs to sign. But they never do that do they?

[Enterprise]

It’s a nice start, but the Republicans need to demand that the DOJ file civil rights lawsuits against States that violate citizen’s right to carry.

[OneWingedShark]

It is also interesting to note that while the various sides were blaming who the others for various amendments, the argument around the 2nd was who was to get the credit.

(If more laws were plagued with that sort of disagreement we’d be far better off.)

[archy]

This would make Washington’s concealed pistol license valid across the nation, an advantage that no citizen from any state currently enjoys, and likewise, licenses and permits from other states would be honored in the Evergreen State, just like a driver’s license.

Actually, they have it backward. We're getting ready to have a bill introduced in Wyoming that the driver's license and vehicle license plates from any state that refuses to recognize Wyoming carry permits are similarly invalid in Wyoming. Residents of those states found to be driving in the Cowboy State can then be arrested for vehicle operation without a valid license, and their vehicles can be sold at public auction.

Whether it simply keeps them out of the state or lessens the traffic on the roads around Yellowstone, it's a win either way.

[marktwain]

But they never do that do they?

Well, actually, they do. That is how we got the ban on guns in federal parks removed. We won that one big time. The same people tried to get the national reciprocity bill attached to a bill that President Obama wanted, and it failed by two votes in the Senate. If you assume that we can never win because the deck is stacked, we will never win. But we have already won some big ones, so that assumption is incorrect. We are winning.