This is a real problem that they are attempting to solve. This site shows how the patchwork of laws across the country is very difficult to manage. You can click by state to see the gun laws of that state and the relationships of other states to it.
Let’s say you live in New England, where a few hours of driving can easily take you across three or four state lines. MA has a restrictive policy where they do not reciprocate any other states gun laws. VT, on the other hand, honors permits from anywhere else. So, if you travel from your home state of ME, CT, NH or RI to VT you are within the law. But if you travel to MA you are breaking the law. A person regularly travelling around New England would have to apply for several different licenses and keep them all up to date. This is wrong.
It seems setting up the concealed carry laws similar to drivers licenses would make sense. You get your permit under the laws of your home state, but then other states recognize and honor it. For that reason, I’d support such a law.
However, there is a state’s rights angle to consider here. Much as I might disagree with a state like MA which may have more stringent requirements to get a permit, they do have that right (within reason, because of the second amendment). States should be laboratories of democracy that are allowed to craft their own rules.
So, is this new law a good idea? Is it constitutional? Do you support it?
I’m a huge 2nd amendment supporter, but if you pass this law, you might as well say that the only gun laws in the country are the ones passed by the state with the weakest gun laws. I’m for that in principle, but not at the federal level.
I would hold such a law unconstitutional if I was a Supreme Court Justice, but with the expansive view of the commerce clause, I think such a law would pass muster. (People are afraid of crime when they travel; if a person cannot carry a gun on his vacation, he might not travel as much affecting interstate commerce).
How would this be enforced in the restrictive states? Take a state like Hawaii that doesn’t issue permits but is now forced to recognize them from the other 49 states. Can it pass a law banning carry within 6 miles of an enclosed structure? IOW, we fully honor that Florida permit, but you must follow our “off limits” places law. Or is that preempted as well? Whose off-limits list controls?
Can I get around my home state restrictions by getting a non-resident permit? Can a Hawaii resident get a non-resident Florida permit and carry in Hawaii? That would seem silly, but it would be even sillier if everyone in the country could carry in Honolulu except Hawaii residents.
I don’t think I would support this. I do support the court cases making their way up the ladder that are holding that a state must provide a good faith method for people to “bear” arms whether that is open or concealed carry, with a reasonable permitting process.
That is clearly what their goal is. They could then just work to get the legislature of, say Idaho, to vote to grant concealed carry to all comers for a $40 fee, no training and no background check. Idaho would become the Delaware of gun ownership, rake in the fees and and all gun laws nationwide go out the window.
I think this is reasonable. I never really understood why concealed carry was considered a big deal. Yeah, people can carry their guns around. Big deal. Most of them are generally responsible adults, and so long as we aren’t making Stand Your Ground legal precedent across the nation, I’m not really bothered.
It’s kinda’ ironic that the Bill of Rights, originally intended to protect against federal intrusion, has been inverted to make the federal government the champion of personal rights against state governments. But hey, if the states were all pro-gun and a federal elite was trying to abolish firearms, then the NRA would be on the states’ rights side.
The ridiculous thing is, in most states one can carry openly with no license/permit required, but a permit/license is required to cover it up in all but 4. Why?
Those 4 states have “constitutional carry”. I’d like to see some cites that it’s not a good idea. Otherwise IMHO requiring a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right is tyranny!
I think “Constitutional Carry” is a no-go because the SCOTUS has consistently held that it is not going to flatly invalidate all state regulation and oversight of firearms. “Shall Issue” still isn’t fully established in places like CA and NYC.
The GOP justices are all for federalism AKA states rights until espousing it goes again a GOP cause, like gun rights.
And the Democratic justices are against federalism except when it is needed on behalf of a Democratic cause, like gun control.
This will seem overly cynical to some, but since Bush v. Gore, the cynicism fits with what I read in the newspaper.
As for the NRA, they are an special interest group, so, unlike in the case of judges, there’s no reason for them to be loyal to any principle beyond their special interest.
According to Wikipedia, open carry is illegal in more than half the states:
As for the ridiculousness, I know that open carry makes a lot of people nervous, and can result in calls to police even where it is legal. If widespread in an area, it might start hurting tourism by foreign visitors. But, really, I think a criminal is a lot more likely to conceal his or her weapon than an honest person. And if you are carrying your gun to guard against mugging, you probably need to have your hand on it all the time. So why isn’t concealed carry even more ridiculous than open carry?
As for the licence/permit, what is ridiculous is how easy it is to get in red states, with knowledge and marksmanship often graded by for-profit trainers having an interest in a high pass rate. Licensing would have to be more rigorous before I’d see it as ridiculous that open carry sometimes has a lower standard.
There is a serious misconception held here that I would like to clear up. Universal concealed carry (UCC) doesn’t require states to honor the restrictions of the issuing state. No more than a motorcyclist would be allowed to split lanes in Texas because his driver’s license was issued in California.
The primary objection that actually has a basis in fact is that states with strict training requirements would would have to honor permits from states that are more lenient.
The ones wailing the loudest, of course, are the ones who have designed their policies to be as restrictive as possible short of a complete ban.
Florida has served that purpose for a long time. They have one of the highest rates of reciprocal agreements in the country and they issue out-of-state licenses as a matter of course if the applicant passes the background check. Between the applicant’s home state permit and the Florida out-of-state permit that person can carry almost anywhere. There are a few exceptions, like California and New Jersey, who don’t recognize any other permits but their own, but it offers much more freedom of movement.
That said, I like things the way they are. If you live in a place where gun rights are more restrictive and you wish to change things, do it through your local legislature. That’s why we have states, after all. Are they not supposed to be so-called laboratories of democracy where the local government is more able to respond to the needs and wishes of its constituents?
And it most certainly does NOT say that. Did you read your own cite?
It only listed 5 states where the practice is out right illegal. Florida is on the fence because it allows for OC in certain situations. As it stands 30 states allow for unlicensed open carry, and 14 allow for open carry with a permit.
4 states have constitutional carry in which one does not need a permit to carry openly or concealed. There are several more states considering it. Where do you come up with that it’s a no go?
There is no reason to provoke a response if it isn’t necessary, which open carry regularly does. If the local authorities don’t know the laws of their jurisdiction, something that is a lot more common than you might believe, especially when it comes to concealed carry, you might find yourself on the business end of a firearm thanks to a panicked man-with-a-gun call. Last, the benefit of concealed carry when it comes to crime prevention is that the criminal doesn’t know who is armed, which acts as a deterrent. There are methods for easier access to the firearm, but in the end carrying concealed is a compromise between safety, subtlety, and preparation.
Depending on how the next few SCOTUS cases go, we might find ourselves with the NRA pushing for universal reciprocity of gun permits while the gun control folks push for a federal gun licensing scheme that trumps all state and local permits (grandfathering in all current permits (I believe that all current permits expire within 5 years of issue).
So that cops can treat anyone that is carrying concealed without a license like a criminal… maybe?
The right to carry MIGHT be a constitutional right (I think it is) Heller seemed pretty clear that shall issue licenses are permissible under the constitution.
If you can make me register to vote (the most basic democratic right we have), and you can make me carry particular forms of ID to exercise that right then it seems to me that a state might be able to require a license to carry as long as the requirements aren’t onerous.
Utah had the most reciprocity the last time I checked.
Show me in the U.S. Constitution where it specifically says you have the right to vote. While it is a given that we have that right, it doesn’t really exactly come right out and say it, does it?
This is known as national reciprocity. It’s not the feds granting carry licenses - it’s saying if your state grants it, then it would be recognized nation wide. This is not a new idea - I believe it failed passing the house by just a few votes within the last few years. I would completely support national reciprocity.
This isn’t an issue of state’s rights at all. Characterizing it as such is simply wrong. The right to armed self defense is a civil right, and after MacDonald minimum standards at the federal level need to be established. Just as free speech is not a state’s rights issue, neither is armed self defense. Both the 1st and 2nd amendment recognized a pre-existing right and set limits on what the government may do with respect to those.
While I agree that to an extent states should be a laboratory of democracy - there is a minimum guarantee of certain civil rights that a state may not violate. Armed self defense is one of those and national reciprocity is a way to further that goal.
This is a terrible argument against open carry. It basically says that people should be afraid to exercise legal activity because police don’t know the law and may kill them. If that’s what is happening (I think it is, maybe not to the extent that people are being killed, but some departments promise to do felony stops of anyone carrying even though carry is legal) then those police should be sued for civil rights violations and the department and city should be bankrupted. The individual officers should be sued personally for USC 42 1983 violations and also be bankrupted. Police ought to know the law they are trying to enforce.
Fortunately I think the tide is turning and I have heard examples of these panicked “man with a gun” calls where the dispatcher tells the person that is legal. I’ve also seen the reverse which is unfortunate. If the police don’t know the law, multi-million dollar lawsuits offer a valuable if not quick education.
No, the right to armed self-defense within the home is a civil right, but nowhere in those decisions did the Supreme Court guarantee a right to carry a weapon outside of the home. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But it has not happened yet, and given that certain rights are still subject to public policy exceptions (yes, even speech) they may never sign off on that.
Again, I disagree. States no longer have the right to completely proscribe the ownership and possession of firearms in one’s home, but they certainly have the right to regulate anything outside of the home until told otherwise.
“I was right” is perhaps the last thing you want inscribed on your gravestone. You do what you want. I’ll keep it concealed, thanks. No harassment, no accidents, no ignorant cops, no scared or hateful 911 calls for me. It’s not worth it to me. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
