GOP Lawmaker Betting on Trump to Push New Concealed Carry Law

[txradioguy]

The new session of Congress doesn’t begin for a few weeks, but one Republican policymaker has already drawn up a bill that would allow people to carry a concealed handgun from one state to another.

The lawmaker behind the bill, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), joined the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney to discuss how the proposed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work.

“It would work just like a driver’s license,” he said. “If a state has concealed carry, then what it says is you recognize the concealed carry right and you have to follow their laws.”

Even though the bill couldn’t be imposed in states that don’t enforce the concealed carry law, in Rep. Hudson’s opinion, the bill has a very good chance of getting passed.

“In the last Congress that’s about to end, in 48 hours, we had over 200 co-sponsors… so I think passing the House is not going to be a problem and now more importantly… we’ve got a President who supports this freedom,” he said.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/12/07/gop-lawmaker-betting-on-trump-to-push-new-concealed-carry-law.html

[txradioguy]

I know mine is probably not the popular opinion on this...but IMHO I think it should still be up to the individual states to set their policy on concealed carry...so long as it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment or subvert it in any way.

[geronl]

I know mine is probably not the popular opinion on this...but IMHO I think it should still be up to the individual states to set their policy on concealed carry...so long as it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment or subvert it in any way.

I agree

[thackney]

I know mine is probably not the popular opinion on this...but IMHO I think it should still be up to the individual states to set their policy on concealed carry...so long as it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment or subvert it in any way.

Exactly.  I don't want the federal government to force one state to follow another state's laws.

If he writes a Bill that defines "shall not be infringed" and requiring any permit for "the people to keep and bare arms" illegal, I would support that.  Follow the actual Constitution?  Imagine that.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Exactly.  I don't want the federal government to force one state to follow another state's laws.

If he writes a Bill that defines "shall not be infringed" and requiring any permit for "the people to keep and bare arms" illegal, I would support that.  Follow the actual Constitution?  Imagine that.

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[thackney]

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So Alaska's (and others) Constitutional Carry (no permit required) must be recognized in every state?  Or the oppressive, almost no permits issued, of New York (and others) must be enforced in every state?

[Oceander]

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Full faith and credit does not mean that a state has to enforce another states law within the first states own territory. 

[andy58-in-nh]

I know mine is probably not the popular opinion on this...but IMHO I think it should still be up to the individual states to set their policy on concealed carry...so long as it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment or subvert it in any way.

The problem is this: I am fully licensed to carry concealed (or openly) in my home state of New Hampshire. I live 30 miles from Massachusetts, which does not recognize NH firearms licenses, and which maintains draconian gun laws, besides.

But any time I have to drive over the border - for example, to visit my father-in-law on Cape Cod - I have to make certain to remove the pistol I carry in my car's glove box before I leave. Were I to be stopped and the pistol discovered, I would be in a world of trouble, facing felony charges, financial ruin, and likely jail time - all for an action that is perfectly legal 30 miles away, making a felon of an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

Sorry, but that is insane and I might well argue, inherently violative of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment and also Federal equal protection statutes.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

So Alaska's (and others) Constitutional Carry (no permit required) must be recognized in every state?  Or the oppressive, almost no permits issued, of New York (and others) must be enforced in every state?

If it were up to me, I'd say it's a moot point, since there's only one Constitutional position.  I've always found that section a bit ambiguous.  I understand the general intent (for example, if you're married in one State, you're still married in all States -- not often a popular position in certain discussions, but that's my undertanding of what it actually says), but there are a lot of situations that I think are left unanswered.

I move from VA to FL, get new license, insurance and registration one day.  13 years later I can't renew my FL DL because it has been suspended in VA (unbeknownst to me).  Turns out, VA got notification that I cancelled my insurance before they found out I got a FL DL, so they simply ASSUMED that  I was driving in their state (wrong) without insurance, so they charged me (without bothering to let me know, which could have been a real problem as I still drove in VA from time to time).  While I was finally able to provide proof of insurance for the time in question (13 bloody years prior, not easy) and avoid the $500 fine they wanted, I still had to pay their extortion (sorry, "administration fee") to get them to correct THEIR mistake.  Yeah, little sore about that one.

[thackney]

The problem is this: I am fully licensed to carry concealed (or openly) in my home state of New Hampshire. I live 30 miles from Massachusetts, which does not recognize NH firearms licenses, and which maintains draconian gun laws, besides.

But any time I have to drive over the border - for example, to visit my father-in-law on Cape Cod - I have to make certain to remove the pistol I carry in my car's glove box before I leave. Were I to be stopped and the pistol discovered, I would be in a world of trouble, facing felony charges, financial ruin, and likely jail time - all for an action that is perfectly legal 30 miles away, making a felon of an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

Sorry, but that is insane and I might well argue, inherently violative of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment and also Federal equal protection statutes.

In a sane world, the right for you and I to keep and bare arms should not be taken away without first due process.  But forcing a state to accept the laws of a different state can go against you as easily as help you in this situation.

[txradioguy]

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

There's this little thing called the 9th and 10th Amendment.   

[andy58-in-nh]

In a sane world, the right for you and I to keep and bare arms should not be taken away without first due process.  But forcing a state to accept the laws of a different state can go against you as easily as help you in this situation.

If the laws of one state violate the Constitutional rights of residents or non-residents, they are always subject to challenge in the courts.

[thackney]

If the laws of one state violate the Constitutional rights of residents or non-residents, they are always subject to challenge in the courts.

Requiring a permit in the first place, is an infringement on the rights of the people.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

There's this little thing called the 9th and 10th Amendment.   

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..."

Which would not apply to things already covered by Article IV, which ARE powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and powers prohibited by it to the States.

[txradioguy]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..."

Which would not apply to things already covered by Article IV, which ARE powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and powers prohibited by it to the States.

If what you said were actually true. Then we'd already have one monolithic federal gun law one way or the other.

The very reason the federal government hasn't been able to do that...under the part of the Constitution you cite..is because of states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments.