Posted on 11/25/2011 5:36:59 AM PST by marktwain
ONE question that worries many visitors to defensivecarry.com, a website devoted to the delights and pitfalls of life with a hidden gun, is whether their “concealed-carry” permits will be valid outside the state in which they are issued. Can they take their guns on holiday with them? Can they pack them in their checked bags for a flight? What if their plane is diverted to a spot like New York, which makes it exceedingly difficult to carry a gun? And if they cannot bring their guns with them, how will they defend themselves and their loved ones when threatened?
Gun-rights activists have a simple solution: require all states to honour one another’s concealed-carry permits. There is no reason to suppose, says Andrew Arulanandam of the National Rifle Association (NRA), that a person considered fit to carry a gun in one state would suddenly become a menace to society on entering another. Many states already have such reciprocal agreements, without any obvious ill effects, he adds. The House of Representatives agrees: earlier this month it approved a bill that would make one state’s permit valid in any other, with the exception of Illinois and the District of Columbia, both of which do not allow concealed weapons at all.
Opponents of the measure, including the mayors and police chiefs of many big cities, say it will allow people to get around local rules about who can obtain a concealed-weapon permit. Many states require permit-holders to undergo safety training, for example, or deny permits to alcoholics; others do not. Four states—Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming—do not require a permit at all, although three of them do helpfully issue them for use outside the state. The question of which states have the cheapest and easiest-to-obtain permits is another popular topic on defensivecarry.com. Forcing states to accept the permits of the most permissive jurisdictions would be an assault on states’ rights, says Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a pressure group.
It will fall to the Senate to adjudicate. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, says he is working on getting concealed carry through the chamber. He was also the leader of the last attempt, in 2009, that fell just two votes short of approval. Conditions look more favourable now. Several of the Democrats who voted against reciprocity then have since been replaced by Republicans, who tend to be keener on gun rights. Others, such as Claire McCaskill of Missouri, are facing difficult re-election battles in gun-friendly states. Even Barack Obama, the bogeyman of gun-rights groups, has wavered on the subject of concealed carry. He claimed to oppose it as a candidate, but then signed a law permitting it in national parks in 2009.
Mr Obama, facing a difficult re-election battle of his own, would probably prefer not to offend anyone by weighing in on either side this time. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, could well grant him his wish, by preventing the subject from coming to a vote. And even if there is a vote, gun-control advocates assume that when the chips are down enough Democrats would probably be available to foil Mr Thune again. But relying on allies who do not wish to come forward until the last minute is always a nerve-racking proposition.
The MSM pushed the idea permits for decades. It has now come full circle and is biting them back. They alway thought they would be in control of the debate. They are rapidly moving toward the dust bin of history. I hope it happens fast enough to save the country.
The most important venue for CCW reciprocity is the District of Columbia, and it’s the only one over which Congress properly exercises legislative authority.
Better solution, do away with any kind of carry permit. If someone should not be able to carry, make the negative apply to them, don't require a "positive" from everyone else....
What kind of a flaming radical are you, anyway? Who do you think you are, John Adams? :-)
j/k, my FRiend -- hope you are having a great Thanksgiving holiday.
-I have avoided them for years due to their virulent anti-gun stance of about twenty years ago--
You're exactly right, and a lot of people get caught up in the idea that they like a law, not whether the Congress has the authority. I love the idea of this law, but the Congress has no authority.
If somebody is too dangerous to have a gun, then he's too dangerous to be walking the streets.
That said, I don't like the idea of Congress sticking their noses in. With Congressional legislation will come Congressional restrictions, to "normalize" permits to the standards of the more-restrictive states.
Easy legislation: "Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun in a neighboring State, shall be authorized to carry in the District of Columbia" with the typical restrictions on carry inside federal buildings.
Immediately, anybody with a Virginia permit, or who qualifies for a non-resident permit which Virginia grants reciprocity, can own and carry in DC.
Couple that with the right to buy guns in any neighboring state, to get around DC's lack of gun stores.
the real honest TSA employees might steal your handgun out of your luggage.
There's no money for government in that.
Actually, I wonder why, since it IS a constitutional right, one would need a permit.
Well, I think that since Congress has the power to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the District of Columbia, they are within their rights to exercise discretion over whether or not the residents of DC who are not citizens in a state may or may not buy, own, posess, or carry weapons.
But it's very surprising that Congress wants to exercise authority over state permits to carry but refuses to grant US citizens who are legal CCW holders in their own states the right to carry in DC. The excuse that "this was decided by the DC local government" is absurd, since tha "local government" exists at the pleasure of Congress. Congress could make DC "local government" cease to exist tomorrow (actually quite a good idea, BTW) without violating any part of their authority.
Many states, which includes California and might include New York, have neither reciprocity statutes or procedures for issuing concealed carry permits to non-residents. I.e., those states allow their own residents to obtain concealed carry permits, but won’t allow non-residents to do so. This is a violation of both the 14th Amendment’s equal protection of the law provision, and of the constitutional right to travel.
Exactly. A permit, a permit application, a $100 dollar application fee, a required safety course...these are all infringements. Which are expressly forbidden to the Federal Government. And yet...here we are.
From the Constitution:
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.
Certainly the granting of a permit to carry a concealed firearm is a "public Act". Assuming that a state is justified in demanding that a citizen qualify for a permit, what is reasonable about expecting a traveler to qualify for a permit in every state visited? This clause of the Constitution was to prevent the very prohibitions we are seeing.
Those who believe that states should be able to disarm their own citizens must also believe that our Founders intended that states could disarm visitors from other states.
For much of our history the punishment for stealing a man's horse was hanging. This is because depriving a man of his horse could strand him and result in his death.
The punishment for disarming a law-abiding citizen should be the same, whether that citizen is a resident of the state or a visitor.
Tell me in more detail now why you believe the bill in question to be unConstitutional?
I believe that this is being challenged in one of the many cases working their way through the legal labyrinth in Kalifornia.
Governor "Moonbeam" Brown just signed a law outlawing open carry. Given the fundamental character of the right to bear arms, he has just helped shape the outcome of this case greatly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.