Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act-Good Idea or Not?

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

Could you elaborate on this point a bit more? I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding my position or I’m misunderstanding your argument.

States generally have sovereignty over criminal matters, so long as there is not a constitutional principle involved. States are not obligated to recognize other states’ laws if those laws do not conform to their own laws. (Just because State 1 gives a drivers license to a pig doesn’t mean that 49 states are obligated to let pigs drive in their state.)

Clearly part of this power involves setting policies toward what that state thinks are acceptable standards for legally carrying firearms in public. If a state thinks that another state issues permits in a way they do not think meets their standards, the state is currently free to say, “Nope, that’s not up to our standard.” The full faith and credit clause allows states to do this.

What you have been arguing is that states must accept the policies of other states with respect to these permits, even if the other states have very loose permit laws and the state in question has very strict permit laws. That’s not fair on several constitutional principles, even if you think everyone should carry guns with little regulation. It means the Federal government is substituting its judgment for some states for matters that are not within the Federal perview, and even more, subjecting the lawmaking power of a state to the lowest common denominator of any of the other 49 states.

To use a flawed analogy, let’s say conservatives get a bug in their bonnet about state taxes, and direct that states can only collect sales taxes only to the amount authorized by the home state of a nonresident (e.g., if an Oregonian buys something in California, the Oregonian pays zero sales tax). Such a law is wrong on multiple principles, but it’s pretty clear that the only point of such a law would be to subvert states that have perfectly constitutional tax laws that people in other states don’t wish to comply with.

[Pantastic]

@RTFirefly

I didn’t have any opinion about it at all that I can recall. Even political junkies like me aren’t aware of every last piece of Congressional legislation.

You have and expressed a general opinion about people’s need to carry outside of their state of residence, are you saying that the position you had against people carrying just vanishes completely, and you believe that it it neither applies nor does not apply to Law Enforcement officers, that you’re completely neutral on that topic? Aside from that, it’s really a cop-out in a debate about concealed carry to just shrug and profess ignorance of arguably the most significant piece of national concealed carry legislation since 1986, and to refuse to even profess whether you agree or disagree with it when discussing new concealed carry legislation.

[Pantastic]

@RTFirefly

In the latter example, it stuns me to find that possession of a handgun without a license is a crime punishable by “many years behind bars.” That strikes me as wildly disproportionate to the offense - ‘offense’ because ‘crime’ seems like too strong a word. ISTM that the NRA, with its clout, would have no problem mobilizing against such draconian laws regarding gun possession. (They - quite effectively - work to change state gun laws all the time, so this would hardly be a reach for them.) And for once in my life, I’d be cheering them on.

In the former example, how hard is it to get a concealed-carry license in a state where you don’t live, but you do have business, whether job-related or personal business? If it’s really too heavy a lift, then again, I’m sure the NRA could lobby to make it easier.

You you seriously think it’s not difficult to get a non-resident concealed carry license in places like Illinois, New York, California, or DC? And you think the NRA can just snap their fingers and get legislation passed to make those areas shall-issue for non-residents somehow? For fuck’s sake, DC and Chicago had complete bans on handgun possession for regular people until the NRA pushed US vs Heller to the Supreme court in 2008, but you think the NRA could just “lobby to make it easier” and succeed? The NRA has been working for decades with limited success to change the laws you think they can just snap their fingers and change.

[Bone]

SAF pushed Heller and McDonald - NRA was a co-pusher

I think carry should be a constitutional right based on current jurisprudence, but that has yet to be decided. That being said, I think this is a legitimate exercise of congressional authority, though not based on 2nd amendment constitutional arguments.

I hope it passes.

[Orwell]

@Bone

SAF pushed Heller and McDonald - NRA was a co-pusher

And don’t forget GOA. I like the postcards that GOA supplies that I can mail to politicians if I choose. NRA is the biggest, and has the most clout, but SAF and GOA are good organizations, too.

I belong to all three organizations, and send money to all of them a couple times of year.

[UltraVires]

@Bone

SAF pushed Heller and McDonald - NRA was a co-pusher

I think carry should be a constitutional right based on current jurisprudence, but that has yet to be decided. That being said, I think this is a legitimate exercise of congressional authority, though not based on 2nd amendment constitutional arguments.

I hope it passes.

I agree with the spirit of the bill. I believe that certain states (NJ and MD, I’m looking at you!) are violating the Second Amendment with a legal structure that effectively prohibits citizens from carrying guns, open or concealed, outside of the home.

Nonetheless, this bill is an overbearing expansion of federal powers which intrude on the plenary police powers of the states. If a state wants to say no carry in bars, for example, we can debate the merits of that, but it is beyond question that a state can pass the law. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit unwise laws.

Although I wouldn’t cry too many tears if the bill were to become law, I oppose it on principle.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Vermont residents are probably SOL. Or perhaps they could get a non-resident permit from Maine or elsewhere.

That article was not correct.

Here is the actual law for Virginia. The last paragraph says:

@Bricker

You are misunderstanding.

The most charitable explanation for the article you quoted is that they’re talking about states that grant a permit without a live-fire test, and indeed Virginia is such a state. So when they say, “Permits from Virginia are valid in North Carolina, and only require applicants to pay a fee, watch a gun safety video, and answer an online questionnaire,” the unspoken addition is “…as opposed to demonstrate competency by firing.”

But Virginia does require a background check. Va Code § 18.2-308.02(E), “Application for a concealed handgun permit; Virginia resident or domiciliary,” provides:

(emphasis added for clarity)

The less charitable explanation, of course, is that the authors of that article were deliberately deceptive.

ETA: Ultra-ninja’d with extra red color!

Cool, well I learned something, which is ultimately the reason I spend time on this board, so I appreciate it. I don’t know the exact reason for the authors wording it that way, but I did take the impression that those were the only requirements in that state.

But, that still does bring two problems.

The first is that there are still states that don’t require a permit to carry concealed, would you have to get a permit to carry concealed outside of your state, or is just proof of residency in a state that does not require (or even issue, in the case of vermont) a CCW.

The second is that different states have different levels of competence and training required to have a CCW. It looks like kentucky requires you to be a pretty good marksman, while some states don’t require you to show any proficiency at all. If this legislation carried with it at least some minimal requirement for states to issue a ccw, or at least for a ccw that is honored in other states, that would be different, but as is, states have no way of ensuring the proficiency and training for those carrying.

Okay, that actually leads into a third concern I have, state shopping. If I cannot, or do not wish to meet the requirements to get a CCW in my home state, can I go to another state, get a non-resident CCW, and then my home state has to accept that? I suppose in many ways, this is actually my greatest concern, as state shopping will encourage at least one state to win the race to the bottom, where all you need for your CCW is to mail in a $25 fee.

I get that these concerns I have are probably actually seen as benefits to the pro-gun community, but, while I have certainly moved away from restrictive gun control (I am actually much softer on gun control these days than many of my gun toting friends), this seems to go the other way pretty far.
As an aside, one of the primary reasons that my gun toting friends are in favor of better gun control is that they understand the dangers that a gun can pose in the hands of idiots and assholes. They are not only concerned about public safety with less restrictive gun controls, but they also fear a backlash against responsible owners if irresponsible owners and carriers start acting, well, irresponsible with their guns. If enough idiots and assholes start walking around with guns all the time, there may be enough incidents that cuase the public to shift towards much more restrictive gun control, ruining it for the responsible owners who would have no problem fulfilling the basic requirements that the less responsible can’t or won’t.

[Clothahump]

@Orwell

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,

I’m in favor of it for this reason.

When I went through my CC training, the instructor pointed out that many states have reciprocity with one another. However, the burden is on the permit holder to do the homework and make sure if I’m going through several states that I know what the specific laws are for each state. This legislation would level the playing field, so to speak.

[Pantastic]

@Bone

SAF pushed Heller and McDonald - NRA was a co-pusher

I’m using NRA as shorthand for “the pro-gun lobby”. When responding to someone who thinks that it’s no big deal to get a concealed carry permit in NY, CA, IL, NJ, or DC and/or that the NRA can just casually get pro-gun laws passed in those states/territories, I feel it’s a safe bet that they’re unfamiliar with the less-well-known groups. That’s actually one of the most mind-boggling thing about gun debates; even on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, a lot of people are aggressively ignorant about actual gun laws, and instead of discussing anything related to reality will talk about how NY’s gun laws would just go away if that dumb 'ol NRA were to just lobby against them, even though the NRA has been doing that (plus filing lawsuits) for decades without a big success.

[Bullitt]

I’m in favor but would like to see higher CC training standards. For example, in some states the range sessions’ standards were pretty low. I realize CC training is more about CC and ensuring shooters handle their weapons safely, but from what few states I’ve attended there are a lot of poor shooters out there. And that’s shooting at paper in a no/low stress situation.

[Pantastic]

@k9bfriender

The second is that different states have different levels of competence and training required to have a CCW. It looks like kentucky requires you to be a pretty good marksman, while some states don’t require you to show any proficiency at all. If this legislation carried with it at least some minimal requirement for states to issue a ccw, or at least for a ccw that is honored in other states, that would be different, but as is, states have no way of ensuring the proficiency and training for those carrying.

Is there any evidence that training and proficiency requirements actually have any real-world effect? Since ‘training’ requirements have historically been used to block people from getting a permit in the first place (by refusing to certify any training centers, or holding so few classes that the general public can’t get a spot in one), I think the bar for making training a requirement should be higher than ‘well, I guess it’s a good idea’. Does Vermont or Alaska have a lot of problems with ill-trained people carrying, or did any state that ditched or scaled up/down training requirements see an increase or decrease in problems?

[Bullitt]

@Pantastic

Is there any evidence that training and proficiency requirements actually have any real-world effect? Since ‘training’ requirements have historically been used to block people from getting a permit in the first place (by refusing to certify any training centers, or holding so few classes that the general public can’t get a spot in one), I think the bar for making training a requirement should be higher than ‘well, I guess it’s a good idea’. Does Vermont or Alaska have a lot of problems with ill-trained people carrying, or did any state that ditched or scaled up/down training requirements see an increase or decrease in problems?

Applying a common sense rule, proficient marksmanship would definitely yield better real world results. If you can’t have a tight group in the black when at the range, how much better will you be when facing a life critical situation? But yes I’d like to see data on this, if such data exists.

And marksmanship training addresses mostly the mechanics of putting a round where intended. Other training is needed for handling the situation.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

What you have been arguing is that states must accept the policies of other states with respect to these permits, even if the other states have very loose permit laws and the state in question has very strict permit laws. That’s not fair on several constitutional principles, even if you think everyone should carry guns with little regulation. It means the Federal government is substituting its judgment for some states for matters that are not within the Federal perview, and even more, subjecting the lawmaking power of a state to the lowest common denominator of any of the other 49 states.

Why would the recognition of CCW permits when travelling across state lines not be within federal purview?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Clothahump

I’m in favor of it for this reason.

When I went through my CC training, the instructor pointed out that many states have reciprocity with one another. However, the burden is on the permit holder to do the homework and make sure if I’m going through several states that I know what the specific laws are for each state. This legislation would level the playing field, so to speak.

You will still have to do your homework to determine when and where you can carry a firearm in the state(s) you’re going to, and the manner in which you may carry it (as evidenced by the prior discussion of the New Jersey law that requires firearms carried in a vehicle to be locked and unloaded).

[k9bfriender]

@Pantastic

Is there any evidence that training and proficiency requirements actually have any real-world effect? Since ‘training’ requirements have historically been used to block people from getting a permit in the first place (by refusing to certify any training centers, or holding so few classes that the general public can’t get a spot in one), I think the bar for making training a requirement should be higher than ‘well, I guess it’s a good idea’. Does Vermont or Alaska have a lot of problems with ill-trained people carrying, or did any state that ditched or scaled up/down training requirements see an increase or decrease in problems?

Having a CCW does you know good, and does the public harm, if you can’t shoot straight. You may be good guy with a gun, but if you’re a bad shot, then that doesn’t make you much better than a bad guy with a gun.

CCW classes also cover scenarios and laws. You may be a good guy with a gun, but if you can’t read the scenario, and understand who the bad guy is, then you, once again, aren’t going to be much better than a bad guy with a gun. If you don’t understand the laws, you may end up violating some pretty serious ones, and find yourself in serious legal trouble. (Of course, it does seem as though when it comes to guns, ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.)

Now, as far as the claim that training (I don’t know why you put that in scare quotes) requirements are used to block people I have to disagree. Most states have some level of training required to get a CCW, and those states don’t use those requirements to block people from getting a CCW. In ohio, we have requirements, and no one I know that has a CCW has complained about the difficulty getting classes or certification. In fact, every day, I see cardboard signs on the side of the road saying “CCW classes 555-0123” (except a real number)

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

Having a CCW does you know good, and does the public harm, if you can’t shoot straight. You may be good guy with a gun, but if you’re a bad shot, then that doesn’t make you much better than a bad guy with a gun.

Cite?

I haven’t seen any evidence that, for example, states without a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW permit have higher incidents of negative outcomes in CCW encounters.

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

Why would the recognition of CCW permits when travelling across state lines not be within federal purview?

Tell me what it has to do with interstate commerce. ETA: and why the Federal government has never felt the need to legislate on recognition of drivers licenses, too.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Cite?

I haven’t seen any evidence that, for example, states without a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW permit have higher incidents of negative outcomes in CCW encounters.

Can you tell me what you are going to do with a gun in a hostile situation if you are a poor shot?

What is the point of carrying a gun, if you can’t hit what you are aiming at?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Ravenman

Tell me what it has to do with interstate commerce. ETA: and why the Federal government has never felt the need to legislate on recognition of drivers licenses, too.

The Commerce Clause is interpreted extremely broadly. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld on the basis that Congress could prohibit segregation in a hotel based on the needs of interstate travelers. I wouldn’t say that this reasoning absolutely applies to traveling with guns, but I wouldn’t say it absolutely doesn’t apply either.

The feds have never needed to legislate recognition of drivers’ licenses because the states have been quite happy to do it on their own. As I pointed out upthread, not doing so would primarily harm states’ own economic interests.

[Orwell]

@k9bfriender

Having a CCW does you know good, and does the public harm, if you can’t shoot straight. You may be good guy with a gun, but if you’re a bad shot, then that doesn’t make you much better than a bad guy with a gun.

CCW classes also cover scenarios and laws. You may be a good guy with a gun, but if you can’t read the scenario, and understand who the bad guy is, then you, once again, aren’t going to be much better than a bad guy with a gun. If you don’t understand the laws, you may end up violating some pretty serious ones, and find yourself in serious legal trouble. (Of course, it does seem as though when it comes to guns, ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.)

Now, as far as the claim that training (I don’t know why you put that in scare quotes) requirements are used to block people I have to disagree. Most states have some level of training required to get a CCW, and those states don’t use those requirements to block people from getting a CCW. In ohio, we have requirements, and no one I know that has a CCW has complained about the difficulty getting classes or certification. In fact, every day, I see cardboard signs on the side of the road saying “CCW classes 555-0123” (except a real number)

It’s hard to argue that training - marksmanship, tactical exercises, state and federal laws, legal ramifications, what to say and do if you are actually involved in a shooting, how to interact with police, etc. - isn’t a good idea. And I certainly think it IS a good idea if handled honestly, conveniently and at a reasonable cost.

BUT, it’s also very easy to imagine that states like NY, NJ, MD, etc. would use training as a hurdle. Expensive, multi-session classes held infrequently at few locations would limit the number of licensees. It’s already happening, I’m sure. I couldn’t quickly find a comparison of permit fees around the country, but I’m betting the price ranges by a multiple of 10X or even 20X. As I said, I feel fortunate that here in PA it only costs $20 for a five-year license.