The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[thackney]

The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/01/04/the-good-and-bad-of-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act/

North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson introduced a bill yesterday that would make a concealed carry permit issued in any state valid in every state.

epublican Rep. Richard Hudson (N.C.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require states to recognize each other’s gun carry permits.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 would address the patchwork nature of the country’s gun carry laws. Currently, each state decides which other states’ gun carry permits it will recognize. Some states recognize all other states’ permits, other states recognize no other states’ permits, and many fall somewhere in between. Gun rights advocates have long decried the web of local laws as confusing and unfair–one in which a wrong turn or missed exit could end in an otherwise law abiding gun owner unintentionally committing a felony.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that,” Hudson said in a statement. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”

Sources within the major gun rights organizations have consistently said that a national reciprocity law is among their top priorities, along with a pro-gun Supreme Court pick and reform, for the upcoming congress. Now, after announcing the bill had been drawn up before the new year, Hudson has introduced his take on the proposal.

 think that the odds of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (PDF) passing both houses of Congress with minimal changes/amendments and being signed into law by President Trump by this summer are fairly high.

And yet, I’m of very mixed feelings about it.

While I’d be thrilled that I’d no longer be disarmed and treated like a second class citizen when I visit my friends in the Northeast (other than needing to acquire some “NY legal” downloaded magazines, and another few boxes of Federal Guard Dog 9mm to get around New Jersey’s ignorant ban on hollowpoint ammunition), I frankly am opposed to federal gun laws.

All of them.

I don’t want more federal gun laws, but instead want the federal gun laws that exist (the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc) repealed or declared unconstitutional.

Why?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[kidd]

[thackney]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

[Cripplecreek]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man who shouldn't be walking free in the first place.

[Jazzhead]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?   Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?   

[thackney]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?

Careful with that broad brush...

  Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?

Absolutely.  The author (and I) does not want this law, even though it may personally benefit him today.  The federal position should only be defense of the constitution on this issue.  The only legal action I desire on this topic for federal legislation is the removal of federal laws that conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

[Cripplecreek]

Careful with that broad brush...

Absolutely.  The author (and I) does not want this law, even though it may personally benefit him today.  The federal position should only be defense of the constitution on this issue.  The only legal action I desire on this topic for federal legislation is the removal of federal laws that conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

Our state constitution is pretty unambiguous on the issue.

[Polly Ticks]

... and another few boxes of Federal Guard Dog 9mm to get around New Jersey’s ignorant ban on hollowpoint ammunition) ...

Out of curiosity, if a person carrying a weapon with a CCDW were to be pulled over for speeding can the officer check to see what kind of ammunition is contained within the speeder's weapon?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@thackney

Do you think that states should have the complete freedom to pass whatever gun laws they want?

[Bigun]

Out of curiosity, if a person carrying a weapon with a CCDW were to be pulled over for speeding can the officer check to see what kind of ammunition is contained within the speeder's weapon?

No he cannot. But if you were forced to shoot someone in New Jersey with a weapon loaded with hollow points it would become an issue real fast!

[Bigun]

@thackney

Do you think that states should have the complete freedom to pass whatever gun laws they want?

As long as they do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution the answer is yes!

[skeeter]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?   Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?

The citizenry of the United States' Constitutional rights regarding firearms are not defined by 'penumbras' and 'emanations'. They are spelled out in black and white.

[Bigun]

The citizenry of the United States' Constitutional rights regarding firearms are not defined by 'penumbras' and 'emanations'. They are spelled out in black and white.

 

[Polly Ticks]

No he cannot. But if you were forced to shoot someone in New Jersey with a weapon loaded with hollow points it would become an issue real fast!

No doubt.   Thanks for the info.

[Just_Victor]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?   Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to apply to all states, equally.  Since the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly declared in the Constitution, the 10th amendment doesn't apply here.  So, no, the states don't get to write their own laws in violation of the Constitution.

[thackney]

@thackney

Do you think that states should have the complete freedom to pass whatever gun laws they want?

No.  Personally I see that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, making it applicable to the States.  McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010) seems to confirm this.

I accept the reality of the current world that every state is no where near a position to accept that as law.  In that I'm blessed to have chosen Texas as my home, but wish we could gain the wisdom of Alaska and others in true Constitutional Carry.

But I see a federal government that can force New York to accept Texas Conceal Carry rules no different than forcing Texas to accept New York's.

[Bigun]

There are in the neighborhood of 513,000 elected officials in the United States of which 537 are federal office holders (less than 1/10th of 1% of the total). My question is why do we need the the other 512,463 if those folks in Washington D.C. are going to insist on running every facet of our lives?

[Polly Ticks]

In that I'm blessed to have chosen Texas as my home, but wish we could gain the wisdom of Alaska and others in true Constitutional Carry.

But I see a federal government that can force New York to accept Texas Conceal Carry rules no different than forcing Texas to accept New York's.

How would National Reciprocity where my KY CCDW is valid in every state mesh with Constitutional Carry where I don't need a CCDW in my state?  Does that imply I can travel to any other state also without a permit?

[Jazzhead]

The 2nd Amendment is meant to apply to all states, equally.  Since the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly declared in the Constitution, the 10th amendment doesn't apply here.  So, no, the states don't get to write their own laws in violation of the Constitution.

I'm not suggesting that a state be able to violate the Constitution.  But that's not the issue here.  Local laws regarding concealed carry in public are, whether wise or not, perfectly Constitutional.   ("Time, place and manner" restrictions and all that.)   But there's no conservative principle that requires the federal government to force a state to conform to another state's laws on a matter of its own citizens' safety.   

[Cyber Liberty]

How would National Reciprocity where my KY CCDW is valid in every state mesh with Constitutional Carry where I don't need a CCDW in my state?  Does that imply I can travel to any other state also without a permit?

I am confident a national reciprocity law would force states to eliminate constitutional carry, which is why I will never support a Federal law.  I live in AZ, BTW.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not suggesting that a state be able to violate the Constitution.  But that's not the issue here.  Local laws regarding concealed carry in public are, whether wise or not, perfectly Constitutional.   ("Time, place and manner" restrictions and all that.)   But there's no conservative principle that requires the federal government to force a state to conform to another state's laws on a matter of its own citizens' safety.   

The only way a Federal reciprocity law could be made to work would be if the Federal government established uniform requirements for CCW, and I see absolutely nothing good in having Schumer and McConnell writing them.  As I said in the post above, this is one more reason I won't support Federal reciprocity.  The Feds need to keep their grubs off of it.

[Just_Victor]

I'm not suggesting that a state be able to violate the Constitution.  But that's not the issue here.  Local laws regarding concealed carry in public are, whether wise or not, perfectly Constitutional.   ("Time, place and manner" restrictions and all that.)   But there's no conservative principle that requires the federal government to force a state to conform to another state's laws on a matter of its own citizens' safety.   

The Constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Any state that creates a restriction for the law abiding citizens' right is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  The problem here is as @thackney pointed out, we have had to create a new law confirming what the Constitution already says.  The Constitution implies the reciprocity in that the 2nd Amendment applies equally, and the states cannot infringe upon it.  But we have accepted that states get to restrict our rights in violation of the Constitution, so the law restoring those rights is necessary.

[thackney]

...But we have accepted that states get to restrict our rights in violation of the Constitution, so the law restoring those rights is necessary.

I would be most pleased to see that law only use the words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[NavyCanDo]

I just wish they would fix the "patchwork nature" within States. One carrying could walk in and out of businesses, and bounce back and forth between being within the law and breaking the law. And many businesses like movie theaters and the Malls do not post clearly at the entry's when guns are prohibited  - instead hiding the rule in a long list of rules in an hard to find location.  And why many legal concealed carriers play the don't ask don't tell scenario - keeping it hidden and your mouth shut.

 

[Doug Loss]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?   Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?

In a word, no.  Marriage and abortion aren't concepts covered (or even mentioned) in the U.S. Constitution, and as such are reserved by that document for state consideration if the states desire to do so.  The bearing of arms is most definitely covered, and the Constitution is unequivocal in saying that that right shall not be infringed, either by the federal government (the 2nd Amendment) or by state or local governments (the 14th Amendment).  The states do not have the authority to restrict the bearing of arms where the federal government doesn't.  That principle is inarguable.