The House passes a concealed carry reciprocity bill that would require every jurisdiction to respect the concealed carry permits of every other jurisdiction.
Included in the legislation is a NICS FIX that would improve reporting by law enforcement authorities into the NICS system (the gun background check system) and funding for a study of bumpfire stocks.
It is pretty well settled fact that concealed carry holders are much lower risks than the general population and in places where the issue has been studied they are actually more law abiding than off duty police officers (who all get to carry guns in almost every state).
This bill does not relax the rules for prohibited persons (the rule that prevents felons, drug abusers, the mentally ill, dishonorably discharged, and domestic abusers from getting guns)
In light of this, why would Nancy Pelosi say that this bill would put guns in the hands of violent criminals, domestic abusers and convicted stalkers?
Why would people characterize this as a giveaway to gun manufacturers? Is anything that is pro-gun rights a give away to gun manufacturers?
If the Gun control folks are concerned about Utah’s standards for obtaining a permit then they can create a federal standard and if is even remotely reasonable, people will jump on it. ISTM that they just don’t want the right to carry to be universal.
I think the concept of reciprocity for concealed carry laws is fine. I just think it should also apply to marijuana. I’m not trying to turn this thread into a debate about marijuana, I just needed to say that.
Edit: I guess it’s not really comparable because the 2nd Amendment is in the constitution, and marijuana isn’t.
Sure to be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS by California and New York.
Does the bill address whether you can go venue shopping for permits issued by lenient states? Laws banning interracial marriage have long since been struck down, but how do states which ban first-cousin marriage handle cousins who married out of state?
Not that I don’t wish “Shall Issue” was the law of the land throughout the USA, but legally this seems problematic.
I’m not clear on the constitutional basis for the Federal government to require states to give concealed carry licenses equal weight no matter where they are issued. When it comes to drivers licenses, for example, its generally up to states to determine whether they wish to recognize a drivers license from another state: for example, a few states allow 15 years olds to get restricted licenses, but that doesn’t mean that states with a minimum age of 16 years old have to allow 15 year olds to drive in their state.
Can someone explain the constitutional basis for the law?
The gun control crowd has been trying to delegitimize guns and gun ownership for decades. Even if complete abolition is an unattainable ideal, they regard reducing the private ownership of guns to the lowest achievable level as desirable. They blame the very existence of guns in America as enabling gun crime. And insisting that opposition to gun control is a plot by the gun manufacturers makes good copy, even if it isn’t true (the Prohibitionists insisted pre-Volstead Act that the “wets” were just shills for the saloons and distilleries).
I never submitted a premise that they “need” to. The fact is, the House submitted a bill that does both, so apparently (at least half of) Congress wants to.
Different states have different ideas of what is necessary to have concealed carry. This law effectively lowers the standard to that of the most lenient state. Any requirements above that are effectively relaxed. Presumably, those states have those extra requirements because they believe they help prevent gun violence. And those requirements are effectively being removed.
Furthermore, even if people with concealed carry are lower risks than other gun owners, they aren’t lower than people who don’t have a gun. Not being able to conceal makes it less convenient to carry, while not abridging ones rights to carry. By relaxing the conceal carry laws, you are adding more armed people to the state, and more armed people increases gun violence risk, concealed carry or not.
Heck, those studies you describe are less viable. They would effectively be based on the current average of concealed carry owners. Now it drops to the requirement of the most lenient state. You can’t even just survey people in that state, as different states have different cultures. On average, guns in rural states are less of a problem than in highly urban ones.
If they are going to nationalize concealed carry, they need to do so by sitting down with studies about what the best restrictions and regulations are, and then make that the law. I would expect that, given the Second Amendment, this would be within federal power. If not, then you could make passing this law contingent on the states below the threshold increasing their rules. (You can thus note that I’m NOT anti-gun.)
As for Pelosi: It’s a downstream effect. Even if we assume that the concealed carry laws of the lowest state keep out the criminals (and that’s not a given–having a gun makes you want to use it), you’re still increasing gun ownership, which means more guns that criminals can get their hands on. Granted, it’s not the most pressing concern, but I do get the politics of pushing the concern with the most pizzazz. I do worry that the weaker connection will undermine the politic. But, then again, she’s trying to convince Democrats, who are more likely to think about the long term implications, and are also more likely to have biases against guns. I’m not a politician, and she is. She likely knows what’s she’s doing.
So are you arguing that many states are unconstitutionally barring 15 year olds with driver licenses from other states from driving? Or that if a car from, say, State A has tinted windows, but drives in State B which bans tinted windows, that the driver cannot be given a ticket in State B? Because my understanding is that the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause has been observed for a very long time, to guarantee that the laws of one state do not trump the laws of all other states.
And in the case of the Armored Car Reciprocity Act, I think it makes sense that the Federal government is on totally safe ground to require a standardization of certain requirements for activities that are literally interstate commerce. But I’m not inclined to accept that EVERY crossing of a state border is an act of interstate commerce. For example, if I am wandering around in Maryland some day, and I am a terrible hiker and I just end up in Pennsylvania because I am lost, I am not prepared to say that I have engaged in interstate commerce, even if I am armed.
To take your tinted windows as an example, each states’ laws would still apply to the place and manner of concealed carry that is authorized. For example, Utah allows me to carry at a school if I’ve got a permit. California (I think) does not. If this bill becomes law, my understanding is that my permit will be valid in California, but I’ll still be subject to California’s laws while I’m in their jurisdiction, so, no campus carry in Cali.
Neither am I, but ever since Filburn was prevented from growing his wheat, our opinion has been a minority.
I guess we have different definitions of “Gun CONTROL”.
FYI, I’m for the background checks part. Not so much for the extension of CC. It stinks like an opportunistic win by the gun lobby and a toady congress that can’t fix one thing without fucking up another.
*Last edited by Jacquernagy; Today at 02:37 PM… Reason: Unfortunately the Founding Fathers neglected to make an amendment about marijuana and I just now realized that… * [RIGHT]
[/RIGHT]
The founding fathers probably just rationally never fathomed that anyone would ever criminalize marijuana.
Glad you brought that up – since the Federal government was prohibited from mandating gun-free school zones, how is it that the Federal government can mandate recognition of carry licenses?
This isn’t actually making the case that the law is sound in your opinion. You seem to be asserting the lots of laws are unconstitutional, in your opinion, so why do you think this law is constitutional, in your opinion?
I think I already answered this: “… the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
That, to me, satisfactorily justifies the Armored Car Reciprocity Act and CCW reciprocity. I’ll leave it up to California and Utah themselves to determine where within their state they’re allowed to carry concealed, and if they’re allowed to do so with tinted windows or not.