House passes Gun Bill

There can be challenges when crossing state lines when some states have much more stringent firearms laws than others. The case of the man whose connecting flight in Newark was cancelled, and had to get his luggage, and was then arrested for the firearm he had legally checked. Other states alter the requirements for where one can have a gun in the car, in the trunk, loaded or unloaded, separate locked container, separated from ammo, etc. As a hunter I regularly check the laws when flying to make sure I don’t change planes in a state that will drop a felony on me.

So anything that cleans this up is appreciated as a traveler.

Do you believe there exists a compelling need for carrying concealed weapons within one’s own state? If the answer to that is no, then the answer to the across state lines is irrelevant. If the answer is yes, then apply that everywhere a person may travel.

Marriage licenses.

I think the supremacy clause allows this if the intent of congress is clear to override state laws. Federal preemption - Wikipedia

This. Someone driving 200 miles or so on the east coast could find themselves in Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.

I am not with the “compelling need” test is in the legal analysis. Which constitutional principle is that associated with?

What Federal law deals with marriage licenses? I don’t know of any.

And when I did a word search in Obergefell v. Hodges, the words “Full Faith and Credit” do not appear anywhere.

But Congress can’t simply decide to override state laws if it is not within the power of Congress to legislate on the topic in the first place. When I look at your cite, this quote appears to bear this out: “If a federal law contains an express pre-emption clause, it does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Group v. Good

ETA: let me ask, aren’t you a lawyer?

Sorry, I was too general.

Transport of encased weapons across state lines does meet a need for hunters and sportsmen. Allowing such weapons to be concealed makes sense and avoids the gun rack syndrome.

Weapons that are carried concealed on ones person do not serve a useful purpose and should not be carried across state lines.

A concealed weapon cannot be used defensively.

Crane

Is this supposed to be an absurd nitpick that one must actually remove the weapon from concealment before it is most effective?

Sounds like they need a GPS, not a CCW.

Well, let’s put it this way: we’ve been in the current situation as regards reciprocity for many decades now. Tell us of the tragedies that have occurred that this legislation would have prevented, if it had been enacted years earlier.

Hardly

When faced by an armed aggressor reaching for a weapon will get you killed. Appearing to reach for a weapon will get you killed.

Crane

I think DOMA was in part a response to the full faith and credit argument.

I don’t think a lot falls into that category.

And you think there is any doubt about congress’ intent here?

Yes, but I am a tax lawyer so your opinion is probably as good as mine. I went to law school before the Lopez case.

Gun rack syndrome?

There is already a federal “interstate transport in firearms act” that allows people to transport firearms from one place where they may legally possess the firearms to another place where they may legally possess the firearms as long as they cannot readily access the firearms during the transport (usually you put it in your trunk). So this isn’t really a concern except some state agencies seem to go ahead and arrest you anyway.

Can you restate that, it doesn’t make sense to me.

You can avoid DC and Pennsylvania if you are going to NYC. But a straight line route can take you through DC and Pennsylvania, especially if you are trying to avoid tolls.

I have asked avid concealed carriers how they imagine they will use their weapon. Most have no idea beyond ‘I will defend myself against a man with a gum’. That’s pure nonsense. If the other guy is holding a weapon, it’s too late to access yours.

Please describe an engagement where a concealed weapon could be used defensively.

Crane

This is what I was expecting. Your disagreement is about concealed carry in general, not about reciprocity. Currently, the LEOSA allows for certain people including retired police officers that have completed the appropriate paperwork to carry concealed weapons in all 50 states in the union. Is it your contention that these folks cannot use their concealed weapons defensively?

I know that we’ve disagreed on the point in the past, but I do agree with Crane here in that I do not see how a gun can be used to defend yourself, if someone already has a gun pointed at your head.

We can go back and forth, and I know that I cannot prove that a gun can never be used defensively in that situation (for instance, if the person holding a gun at you actually posed no danger, wasn’t actually going to shoot, gun not loaded, or even not a real gun), but at the same time, you cannot demonstrate a set of actions that will use your gun to successfully defend yourself against someone that is actually posing you a threat, and willing to kill you to take your money.

A gun the Bad Guy can’t see won’t deter him, either.

Your sitting in the local Country Kitchen Buffet enjoying lunch with your co-workers. A wild-eyed crazy person drives his car through the front window, jumps out and starts shooting people.

You pull your Glock from your shoulder holster, and calmly blow his fucking head off.