Not seeing why this should be treated any differently than driver’s licenses or marriage licenses.
Oops, missed the last several posts talking about this very thing. Carry on.
As has been pointed out, this comparison only works if there are states that issue driver’s licenses with little to no testing and/or training.
An admittedly quick perusal of marriage laws shows different age requirements throughout the states. Do states not recognize marriages that are below that state’s age of consent?
I don’t know, so really asking.
In PA, a car must have valid annual inspection stickers for safety and emissions or the result is a pretty stiff fine. Yet we do not ticket Ohio-plated cars though Ohio requires no such inspections.
But are there any states who don’t allow licensed drivers from any other states? Or states where only politically-connected residents can get a drivers license? Or states where you must prove why you need to drive before getting a license, and still be overwhelmingly turned down? Or a patchwork of drivers licenses where you need to obtain your own state and several more, each with their own fees and requirements, to travel around?
I see your point, but I don’t think it’s very valid. Still, there is a much shorter bridge to mandating minimal training than overcoming the varied and obstructive rules enacted in NY, NJ, MD, etc. And what about the constitutional carry states, which are now up to 13 in number, where residents don’t need a government permit to exercise their constitutional rights?
My understanding is that state laws may explicitly make exceptions for out-of-state vehicles not complying with various requirements. They don’t do this because they are compelled to do so, however.
It is well established that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution does not require states to undertake a blanket policy to waive their own laws whenever a different state’s law comes into conflict:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/306/493.html
However, states may generally find it to be in their own interest to afford residents of other states some considerations. State A might be able to ticket cars of State B for lacking a front license plate, but States A might not want to do so in case State B wishes to ticket cars of State A for lacking an inspection sticker.
Yeah, I think the states with the so-called constitutional carry laws require zero training.
This law reminds me of a quote by H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
To be clear, this law does not appear to force concealed carry rules onto states that do not want them. It merely provides reciprocity for those states that already have them.
EVERY state in the union allows concealed carry. This reciprocity effectively turns every state into at least a shall issue state AFAICT.
But some states require several hours of training and background checks before you get a CCW, and some states just require you to be able to sign your name.
If they combined this bill with some level of minimal requirement to be eligible for reciprocity, that’d be fine, but just making a bill that allows for a race to the bottom in terms of qualifications of CCWs does not seem wise, IMHO.
That is not necessarily true. As pointed out above, there’s a discrepancy in the two versions.
Let’s say State Z does not allow concealed carry in a bar, but someone with a permit from another state is drinking in a bar while armed in State Z. The House version says that the Federal law does not supercede local prohibitions on being armed in state-owned property, and goes on to say that if the permit holder is arrested despite showing his ID and permit to police, has a cause to sue the authorities in State Z. The House bill appears to gut any state laws on carrying firearms in a very, very significant way.
The Senate bill is different in that it specifically says that out-of-state permit holders must comply with the same conditions and limitations that State Z places on its permit holders.
Why is that exactly - why doesn’t the advice to regular people apply to LEOs who are active in one state but visiting one where they are actually just a regular citizen? Shouldn’t they just avoid dangerous areas outside of their jurisdiction?
Is it the degree of disparity that’s the issue? If state A requires 12 hours of classroom training, and state B requires 6 hours of classroom training, would everyone here feel comfortable forcing state A to accept licenses from state B? What about if state B required 8 hours of training? 10? What’s the cut-off?
My own state instituted probationary driver licenses a couple years back, which requires 50 hours of seat time with a licensed adult. Should we be required to recognize licenses with no such training requirement?
I gotta say, I’m lukewarm on gun ownership but I have a hard time with the rationalizations for opposing some of these things.
Any viability with states having a two-tier system, where, for example, “constitutional carry” works within your state, but you have to take an extra class and buy a physical license if you want reciprocity with other states? That way you don’t have to travel to 20 other states to pay fees and take courses just to exercise your rights there, but their voters don’t have to feel afraid of untrained people being armed in their general vicinity?
There are many shall-issue states.
To use your driver’s license analogy, it is state c that requires 0 hours of training, and no written or practical test.
Do you want people from state c driving on your roads?
As far as figuring out what the cut off is, well, that’s why states currently voluntarily enter into reciprocities, because then they can decide what the cut off is, rather than leaving it to the federal government, as this bill is doing.
Not exactly, they allow carry without a permit. To get a permit (for carrying in other states), you have to go through the permitting process, which typically includes training requirements.
Examples:
The Constitution requires states to recognize each others’ marriage licenses to the extent that the marriage is consistent with the state’s public policy. States’ own commercial interests make it beneficial to them to recognize other states’ drivers’ license. Not recognizing other states’ gun laws does not seem to discourage tourists and business travelers in any significant way, so there is no real incentive for states to recognize foreign carry permits.
A better analogy would be to professional licensing. Lawyers, doctors, insurance adjusters, morticians, hairstylists and so forth can’t just show up in a new state and practice their trade in reliance on their existing licenses.
Would this bill effect the need to get a permit to carry in other states?
Personally, I wouldn’t mind. Government-mandated training and licensing is almost always a useless money-grab. I was a cautious driver when I started, got a bit stupider as my teenage years waned, and then became quite competent with more experience. No classroom, sit-down test or $25 fee had any effect on that.
You’d think the actual on-the-road driving test would be worthwhile but I’m still doubtful. I see shitty drivers everyday who would have failed had someone been testing them. Passing a five minute test every few decades on how to stop at stop signs and park on hills is no indicator of skill or safety behind the wheel.
That is not what “shall issue” means. You still, in most if not all cases (I don’t know of any exceptions), have to take a class and a background check. What it means is that the LEO or issuing authority is not allowed to make an arbitrary decision to not allow a CCW even if the background check comes back clear. In a “may issue” state, the county may retain a CCW system, but de facto not allow anyone (without the proper connections) a permit even if they follow the law to the T.
You are correct that different states have very different requirements about what a class entails.