CCW reciprocity

[EM2]

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits
Last updated Monday, April 14, 2008 8:06 PM CDT in News
By Aaron Sadler
THE MORNING NEWS
WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

Boozman said the bill ensures Second Amendment rights.

"I've always felt like you can have a gun, openly display it, and there not be a problem," he said. That some states reject licensed permits from other states "infringes on the Constitution."

Nearly 62,000 Arkansans have concealed gun permits.

Arkansas permit holders are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 27 states, including every neighboring state.

Arkansas recognizes permits issued in 30 states.

Fourteen states do not recognize permits issued elsewhere.

"You have friends who are used to having a gun in their car and things like that, then inadvertently being over the state line or out of state and being concerned they were running afoul of state law," Boozman said.

Boozman's bill would require even Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not have right-to-carry laws, to recognize licenses issued in other states.

A bipartisan group of 33 House members are co-sponsors of the bill, Boozman said.

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to gain enough support for the legislation, and said there is anti-gun sentiment in the Democratic-led Congress. But he cited statistics that indicate crime decreases in states with concealed guns laws.

According to a study cited by the National Rifle Association, violent crime declined each year from 1977 to 1994 in jurisdictions where a concealed gun law was in effect.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

Arkansas at one time had minimum reciprocity requirements, said state police spokesman Bill Sadler. Those regulations mandated that other states' training standards must be equal to or stronger than Arkansas' minimum requirements for a permit holder.

The General Assembly since has stripped those requirements, Sadler said.

Sadler said he would not comment on the merits of Boozman's bill until he had seen the proposed legislation.

Boozman said he feels strongly that Americans should be allowed to carry guns.

"I grew up in Arkansas, and it was not uncommon to see people in high school with gun racks in the back of their trucks, who would go squirrel hunting after school was over," Boozman said. "To be honest, it's something I always felt like there wasn't any question we could do these things."

His 26-year-old daughter, Kristen Boozman, has an Arkansas concealed weapons permit, as do other family members, he said. The congressman himself does not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Spicy McHaggis]

I had to check the date on this article to make sure it wasn't written on April 1. I'm crossing my fingers now.

[RAD-G27]

There are two ways this could be written, a CCW from any state is valid in all states, or a CCW from your "Home State" is valid in all states. I believe that I have seen both way proposed in the past. The first way would be the best, that way my NV or UT CCW would be good here in CA. Since I live in Alameda Co., the second way would not work for me.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by RAD-G27

There are two ways this could be written, a CCW from any state is valid in all states, or a CCW from your "Home State" is valid in all states. I believe that I have seen both way proposed in the past. The first way would be the best, that way my NV or UT CCW would be good here in CA. Since I live in Alameda Co., the second way would not work for me.

Ive posted extensively before why the second would be very unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.... i.e. congress can say that people visiting California from Utah have a right to CCW, but NOT that California has to allow "backdoor" ccws for its own citizens...

Of course, those extensive posts are probably on some other site.... Hmmm... I may have to go find those and re-post em here.

[muscleman_coffeemesto]

As much as I'm for our 2nd amendment rights, I also believe in states rights. If I get my CCW in California, I don't expect other states to respect it. That's nice if they do, but this kind of thing can go both ways.

[flyingm]

I think that this could be a really good thing. This type of legislation is definitely something that we will be seeing more of if Heller goes our way.

Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

I hate to say it but that almost sounds like a reasonable argument. But, assuming that part of the bill would require states to set a minimum standard of training before issuing though, with no exorbitant or fees or requirements... Something just to keep the antis at bay. Either way, it is something to keep our eyes on.

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by EM2

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits
Last updated Monday, April 14, 2008 8:06 PM CDT in News
By Aaron Sadler
THE MORNING NEWS
WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.-------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF???? We know the Brady Group is totally whacked, but this is downright WRONG!

[Hoser]

Originally Posted by muscleman_coffeemesto

I also believe in states rights. If I get my CCW in California, I don't expect other states to respect it.

So I guess my California marriage shouldn't be valid in other states? What about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution?

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sealbeach]

Yep, there a number of legal documents that must be accepted in other states: drivers license, birth certificate, notary certification, marriage license, death certificate, car registration, proof of insurance, etc. etc. IANAL, but is does seem strange that a state issued CCW becomes null when you cross a state line, unless the states have worked out a special deal. If that bill passes it would be a HUGE step in the direction.

[1buba]

Originally Posted by sealbeach

Yep, there a number of legal documents that must be accepted in other states: drivers license, birth certificate, notary certification, marriage license, death certificate, car registration, proof of insurance, etc. etc. IANAL, but is does seem strange that a state issued CCW becomes null when you cross a state line, unless the states have worked out a special deal. If that bill passes it would be a HUGE step in the direction.

Your list got me thinking...

Your drivers license and registration have shorter periods that they are valid in other states (in CA, another states learners permit is only good for 10 days IIRC). Maybe that would make it more palatable?

[AF_int1n0]

Originally Posted by 1buba

Your list got me thinking...

Your drivers license and registration have shorter periods that they are valid in other states (in CA, another states learners permit is only good for 10 days IIRC). Maybe that would make it more palatable?

Would work for me. I'm stationed here. The odds of me getting a permit are nill (of course living in the B-A doesn't much help)

If I could carry on my TX or FL permit, I might actually not mind being here, instead of constantly checking AFPC for Orders. Wouldn't make it perfect, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Of course this bill won't pass. It would make too much sense and California would likely just refuse to follow the federal law anyway.

[AF_int1n0]

Originally Posted by NikNak

WTF???? We know the Brady Group is totally whacked, but this is downright WRONG!

Typical Brady.. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Hoser

So I guess my California marriage shouldn't be valid in other states? What about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution?

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full faith and Credit clause wont work in this instance. It has nothing to do with CCW licenses.

This is a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are addressed in a VERY SPECIFIC RECIPE of sorts to determine their validity.

Heres the deal. Lets say the feds pass this in the broadest possible terms meaning California has to accept Out of state CCWs presented by its own citizens.

1. WHERE DO YOU CONTEND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO DO THIS?

The answer of course is the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, which is what has been used to reform all sorts of state laws from regulating the color of margarine to racial segregation. If you can present another constitutional argument as to why the Feds have this power, you're going to need to do it.

2. If the ICC is the granting power, then it is WELL ESTABLISHED BLACK LETTER LAW that the states can STILL REGULATE the arena for "HEALTH & SAFETY" reasons. For that reason, though interstate railroads are FEDERALLY REGULATED under the ICC the State of California may still create MORE RESTRICT regulations on how they are operated within the state of California, so long as the reason is a LEGITIMATE HEALTH & SAFETY CONCERN, NARROWLY TAILORED TO MEET THAT END, EVEN IF IT INTERFERES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Clearly the regulation of CONCEALED CARRY falls under the traditional "Health & Safety" police Powers retained by the states and its impact on interstate commerce is nearly non-existent, especially if it applied ONLY to CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS.

The law MAY be able to withstand scrutiny with regard to the recognition of NON-RESIDENT CCWs by carried by NON-RESIDENTS in the course of interstate commerce (AKA "TRAVEL"), but there is no way in hell the Feds can regulate what a state says as to its OWN CITIZENS carrying firearms....

Thus, the "Full Faith & Credit Clause" never comes into the equation, and even if it did, it wouldnt come into the equation... It applies to judicial rulings and public records. You have a well recognized constitutional right to MARRY. you have no such recognized right to either drive a car or carry a concealed weapon. The state of California will recognize your out of state DL while you are visting here, but if you stay for a certain period of time (I think its 90 days, but It may be less) you have to legally get a CADL to drive a car. Why anybody thinks the rules would be any different for a CCW is beyond me.

[Hoser]

We'll we be having a test on this?

Thanks for the interpretation!

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

2. If the ICC is the granting power, then it is WELL ESTABLISHED BLACK LETTER LAW that the states can STILL REGULATE the arena for "HEALTH & SAFETY" reasons.

RD, IANAL but didn't SC reject that in Gonzales v. Raich? Allowing federal supremacy via ICC even in health and safety issues?

It's all moot, anyway. There's no chance it will pass in a Dem controlled Congress with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.