House bill 38
Senate Bill 446
I noticed that these are being promoted by the NRA. I thought that the NRA was usually for local control and/or states rights, but this would take control away, wouldn’t it? Would it not create problems in areas where concealed carry was controlled, because police would have to ask for the IDs of those that conceal-carry, then check to see what the laws of that person’s state actually are? I can also see unrest from locals who have to follow local laws while watching outsiders ignore the same laws with impunity(which I am sure the NRA heartily approves of).
What say you?
The states rights is one argument, and I hear it from even the staunchest pro-gun-rights advocates. But the argument in favor of these bills is that you shouldn’t have to give up your constitutional rights when you travel to another state. From a practical standpoint, it would make a carry permit more like a drivers license. You don’t have to get a drivers license in every state you intend to visit. A drivers license is valid throughout the country. But you still have to follow the traffic laws of the state where you are driving, which contradicts:
That’s not the way I understand how it is being designed. Like a drivers license, you will still have to follow the laws of wherever you are. I live in PA, and can legally carry in bars and banks. Some states don’t allow CC in banks, some don’t allow it in bars. A person would have to be aware of the specifics in each state he is visiting. But that’s still much better than simply being disallowed to carry when you cross the border into NY, NJ, MD, etc.
There are vanishingly small numbers of people that are actually pro states rights. What they usually are are “pro this specific thing in which I want to act in opposition to what the federal government wants. I’m pro federal over states in many other instances in which the states act in opposition to what I want.”
It’s not a principled stand, it’s a tactic. Champion states rights when it’s convenient, denounce it when the issue is gay marriage or marijuana.
Unless we all wear state-issued jackets that show where we are from, how do police tell the difference between a local following that state’s law, and an outsider following the law of that state?
AFAICT they don’t need to make the distinction. As your cite says -
Regards,
Shodan
Please re-read my comment. I believe you are mistaken on how the law is being written. The police don’t have to know where I am from, and would enforce the laws of their state. If I am in MD, I would need to follow MD’s laws regarding where I can carry.
The same as we do now when driving. We are allowed to hold our phones and use them while driving in PA. That doesn’t mean I can do that in MD, where you are not allowed to hold your phone while driving.
I’m curious: why is this bill a matter of any importance to its supporters?
Maybe I’m just a wimp, but the question that comes to my mind with some of these laws (and obviously this one specifically) is: if I felt I would need a gun someplace that I didn’t need to go to, why would I want to go there?
The first answer is you never know when you might need a gun. In a cafe, shopping mall, etc… But the second answer is you might need to go places for work, or to visit a friend. Or you might be traveling through one place to get to another.
The bill is important because we don’t live our entire lives in one state. People can (and do) debate about whether others should carry guns. I get that. But part of the impetus for this is the woman who bought a gun and got her carry permit in PA to protect herself (she lived in a bad neighborhood in Philly). She crossed a bridge into NJ and foolishly told a cop who pulled her over for a traffic violation that she had a pistol in her car. She believed her PA license allowed her to carry in NJ. She was looking at many years behind bars before public outrage (and the governor) pressured the DA into not charging her.
Because you need a gun ANY place you go. How else will you protect yourself from the bad people?
So there was public pressure because her beliefs did not match up with the actual law? No one told her that it was a state license, not a national license, and she never bothered to find out? I am surprised the interview she had to go through to get that license didn’t cover something basic like “This is not a national license”.
I looked a the bills, and I want to make sure I’m understanding this correctly.
Let’s say State A requires a person to do a certain thing before a concealed carry permit may be issued to them – let’s say take a class on firearms safety or something. State B is a shall-issue state, in which if you have a pulse, aren’t a felon, and aren’t involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, a person is automatically issued a concealed carry permit.
To the best of my understanding, it is currently up to State A to decide whether it will recognize the permit issued by State B. But under this bill, State A must recognize the permit issued by State B, and local police in State A are prohibited from detaining a person to investigate whether the gun laws of State A are being violated if the person displays an ID and a permit issued by State B.
Am I getting this right?
The NRA is normally pro gun rights. They will advance 10th amendment arguments, but (like most organizations) don’t generally argue for the 10th amendment except when it coincides with their goals. They’ve offered significant opposition to local control in the past by supporting state laws that prevent localities from making local firearms law beyond a few exceptions (like no carry in government offices or no firing guns within city limits).
Did you have the same opinion on nationwide concealed carry for active and retired law enforcement officers that passed a few years back, that they shouldn’t have pressed for the law because if they ever felt in danger they should just go home?
Here’s the story: Christie pardons woman arrested under gun law
Unfortunately, I don’t really see how the reciprocity law would have helped in this case. From upthread:
“This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry.”
and from the article:
“New Jersey’s gun laws - considered among the strictest by national standards - require that even weapons duly registered in the state be transported unloaded and locked in the vehicle’s trunk.”
So even with the law passed, she still would have violated the state laws, with the same outcome.
by staying away from people wearing black hats? Been traveling all my life, and never once felt the need to carry a gun.
And that outcome would be the same-“public” outcry, and pressure from a governor seeking approval to ignore the law and let her go.
Well, yes, most probably, but you can’t use that case as the justification for the reciprocity law, since the law has no effect on that case.
The reciprocity law should have something in it that would cover that case. Maybe something that would exempt those who are transiting in the state from the state’s gun laws as long as they comply with the license-issuing state’s laws. With a strict time limit on the duration of the transit, of course. Although that’s clunky and I am not sure how can be easily checked.
I don’t disagree that it is a very serious responsibility, and she absolutely should have known better. But people don’t pay attention to everything. And they believe what other people tell them. And they tell cops stuff that they shouldn’t.
But years behind bars is not a sane or appropriate penalty for crossing over a bridge. She didn’t hurt anyone, didn’t threaten anyone. It’s a damn shame when we have to fear the justice system because there are too many laws for people to reasonably be aware of, laws that make no sense, and police and prosecutors lack ordinary sense.
Active-no problem. Retired-problem.
Nor have I.
I’m not sure from reading the bill that the quote about not overriding the “time, place or manner” of carrying a gun is accurate. HR 38, linked to above, does not use the phrase “time, place, or manner” at all. I found two relevant provisions, but they are not as extensive as portrayed:
So in my example, let’s say State A has a strict prohibition on open carry, and also prohibits carrying in a school. Seems to me that the bill would allow State A to prohibit carrying in a school because of (b)(2); but that someone from State B who held a CCP from that state may be immune to arrest by State A if the gun was carried openly, regardless of State A’s law.