Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
CCW Reciprocity
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, February 04, 2007

Senators John Thune and Ben Nelson have introduced a bill (PDF) to make state CCW permits reciprocal in all states. In other words, if you have a Concealed Carry permit in Texas, that permit will allow you to carry a concealed weapon in all states, except for certain specified places where even CCW holders can't carry firearms anyway—airports, bars, schools, etc.

To bad this didn't come to the floor prior to last November.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
hmm. Very nice federal intrusion into matters historically regulated by the states. Given that we’re talking about a state permit system, you can’t even invoke the Commerce Clause on this nonsense. no wonder they waited until the Democrats took over; they can blame the bill’s defeat on the dems without having to get laughed out of court.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Given that we’re talking about a state permit system, you can’t even invoke the Commerce Clause on this nonsense.
Maybe the "full faith and credit" clause is more appropriate.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I hope it passes, but I gots to be realistic...
 
Written By: John Norris Brown
URL: http://johnnorrisbrown.com/blog/
Very nice federal intrusion into matters historically regulated by the states.
But also an area of law where the debates concerning the 14 amendment explicitly state the goal of the amendment was to extend the 2nd amendment to the states, so it has been historically true that it is constitutional for the federal government to enact nationwide CCW reciprocity for far longer than it has been unconstitutional.

And it certainly an area where the states have historically abused the administration of CCW laws for racist ends—and I mean both past intent and current outcomes.

Not that I expect you care much about that history, you need your narrative far than you need facts.

And props to Dale, the FFACC would seem to apply, wouldn’t it?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
This is something us pro-amendment 2 Indies can support, especially us with CCW permits already.

But I agree its a stretch for a constitutionally supported federal directive to modify a state permit. Sets a slippery slope for future federal meddling, IMHO.
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
this is a STATE Issue, not a FEDERAL one.... CCW is a TECHNICAL regulation, not applying to the POSSESSION of Firearms, in general. IF a state cares to allow concealed carry fine, if not, fine too.

This is one of those Federal Meddlings, we like therefore it’s OK, but I think to be consistent we need to oppose this. Like abortion this is a state-bystate fight and decision, or ought to be.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
this is a STATE Issue, not a FEDERAL one.... CCW is a TECHNICAL regulation, not applying to the POSSESSION of Firearms, in general. IF a state cares to allow concealed carry fine, if not, fine too.

This is one of those Federal Meddlings, we like therefore it’s OK, but I think to be consistent we need to oppose this. Like abortion this is a state-bystate fight and decision, or ought to be.
Gee, Joe, for once I find myself agreement with you (even on the abortion part; I’m pro-choice, but believe that should be a state issue). Amazing, we agree on something.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Francis: the fact that this bill references permits issued by a particular state is irrelevant to the commerce clause analysis. Plenty of federal laws incorporate state laws by reference. Whether or not you are married is purely a question of state law (try getting a federal marriage license sometime), as is the question of whether you live in a common law or community property state, but both will have a gazillion consequences under federal law, and therefore, under the laws of other states under certain circumstances. Similarly, my right under FOPA to transport a gun through New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts on a trip from Virginia to Vermont depends on the fact that my gun is legal in Virginia and Vermont - it doesn’t matter whether it is legal because neither state requires a permit, or because both states do require permits and I have them.

Personally, I think the interstate commerce argument for this bill is bogus, but it’s no boguser than that of any other federal gun law on the books. Until courts start taking the commerce clause more seriously, why should liberals have all the fun? If the law is upheld, gun rights improved across the country. If it’s struck down as exceeding the commerce power, we get a brand new precedent for striking down all those other, equally unconstitutional gun laws. It’s a win-win.

Dale, full faith and credit is an even bigger stretch than the Commerce Clause. If the courts bought into that rationale, no state could ever proscribe any activity that was legal in another. Personally, I’d prefer to see the bill upheld on Second Amendment grounds. It’s a tougher argument to make given court precedents, but it makes the most sense to me analytically. Start with the notion that there is a Second Amendment, and that it protects something tangentially related to an individual right to carry a gun for his own protection. If it does, a decent argument can be made that the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, as most other provisions of the Bill of Rights already have been. Once the Second Amendment becomes a Fourteenth Amendment issue, there’s that handy-dandy enforcement clause.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Reciprocity" is a lousy name for the bill. "Minimum standards" would be more accurate.

Reciprocity exists when one state agrees to recognize a particular entitlement (like a bar license) granted by a second state if the second state grants the same courtesy to the entitlements issued by the first state. "I’ll recognize yours if you recognize mine." This is not what the Thune bill does; instead it crams down on New York the concealed carry permit scheme of Texas, according to the linked press release.

Constitutional? Only if states are no longer co-equal sovereigns amongst themselves.

Be careful what you ask for. If this bill becomes law and is upheld, then California’s abortion scheme could then be imposed on South Dakota.

I’ll confess to being somewhat surprised that this crowd would be so quickly willling to abandon their anti-federal government principles when a substantative measure that they like is proposed to become federal law.

i’m not sure how a 2nd amendment incorporation argument works here. The First Amendment is clearly incorporated, yet no one has yet proposes that a permit hypothetically issued by the state of California to operate a strip bar be valid in Alabama under federal statutory law.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Joe and Scott,

You are very wrong. Absolutely and explicitly named by the debators, the 14th Amendment was intended to secure to all persons in the United States (especially freedmen, but not exclusively) the right to keep and bear arms, individually, for their protection and the protection of others—even if the local authorities had desires to the contrary.

It is an intrusion only in the sense that the Constitution is an intrusion, and if you have an issue with the constitution on this point, please repeal or amend it. Failing that, keep quiet or at least make sensible arguments, or for all I care climb into the grave with Jeff Davis—where traitors belong.

The public and governmental respect for the 1st and 2nd amendments must be maintained within certain limits, or there will be no more public peace.

This is not a case of federally mandated CCW reciprocity proponents pulling a fast one—in opposing it and implying it is a federal intrusion (presumably where they have no business going)—you are pulling a fast one.

Well pull the other one. Honest people who can read aren’t buying.

You constitution deniers, you ;^)

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Francis,

I’m not pro or anti federal government, I’m pro Constitution.

The states are violating the constitution by adopting anything other than Vermont carry.

They don’t get to do that, and having a federally mandated CCW reciprocity statute is the least they should see as a consequence.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom: even the State of Vermont has some regulation on the carrying of handguns. They are prohibited on school buses, in school buildings and in courtrooms (per the VT AG’s website here). Please direct me to those clauses of the 2nd Amendment which permit that amount of regulation and no other.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
hmm. Very nice federal intrusion into matters historically regulated by the states.
Huh? That has never stopped the left, has it? And defending the Constitution has not lead to conservative victory, so we might as well try another tactic . . .
Given that we’re talking about a state permit system, you can’t even invoke the Commerce Clause on this nonsense.
The wonderful thing about the commerce clause is it is used to justify federal regulation on ANYTHING effecting interstate commerce. State permit system or not is irrelevent.

Does lack of CCW laws effect interstate commerce? That’s the only question you need to answer.
The First Amendment is clearly incorporated, yet no one has yet proposes that a permit hypothetically issued by the state of California to operate a strip bar be valid in Alabama under federal statutory law.
What does this have to do with the First?

And, a CA strip bar would apply to a specific location, and wouldn’t be portable within the state, so why would it then become portable out of the state?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This is not what the Thune bill does; instead it crams down on New York the concealed carry permit scheme of Texas, according to the linked press release.
No it doesn’t.
If a State other than the state which issues the license issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that state under the same restrictions which apply to a person to whom that person has issued such a license or permit.
Or in other words, a Texan with CCW can carry in New York like a New Yorker with CCW because New York is a may issue state. This means that Texans with CCW permits traveling within New York may carry as if they were New York residents with concealed carry permits. And while Texas is shall issue, their permit regime requires training and a firearms proficiency test. In New York you just fill out a form and pay your money. Unless you live in NYC, then you have the extra step of needing to know or bribe someone.

If the state doesn’t have a concealed carry law (and there are a handful of them) then there is a list of minimum restrictions they must follow like no public buildings, schools, airports, sporting events, or places that serve liquor.

But I actually don’t like this. I would love to have open carry be mandated as legal across the country under the "bear" section of the second amendment. Concealed carry? Not so much.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Francis wrote:
"Tom: even the State of Vermont has some regulation on the carrying of handguns."
So. My insisting on 99% of the cake is somehow invalid because I can’t yet get the last 1%?

That’s a remarkably weak argument Francis.

Also, the vernacular meaning of "Vermont carry" in terms of this discussion is that you can carry anywhere publicly. Your objections are overtechnical and not applicable to the term of art.

Jeff the Baptist wrote:
"I would love to have open carry be mandated as legal across the country under the "bear" section of the second amendment. Concealed carry? Not so much."
It says bear, not bear openly.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
hmm, i was unaware that "Vermont carry" was a term of art meaning unregulated carry.

but this is still weird: I’m not pro or anti federal government, I’m pro Constitution. The states are violating the constitution by adopting anything other than Vermont carry. They don’t get to do that, and having a federally mandated CCW reciprocity statute is the least they should see as a consequence.

the appropriate response, for someone who is pro-Constitution, to state violations of the federal constitution is for the federal government itself to violate the Constitution? The response to one wrong is to do another wrong, as opposed to electing state representatives / judges who will follow the Constitution? The Tenth and Eleventh Amendment bite the dust over carry laws?

now that’s just weird.

jeff: i was responding to the first line of the press release which reads: "... a bill establishing a national standard under which a person may carry a concealed firearm in every state if that person possesses a valid permit in their home state." That language necessarily means that Vermont residents can flaunt California law while in California, by asserting federal preemption. I thought that "cram down" was adequate shorthand.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
The Tenth and Eleventh Amendment bite the dust over carry laws?
They are already long dead & buried.
"... a bill establishing a national standard under which a person may carry a concealed firearm in every state if that person possesses a valid permit in their home state." That language necessarily means that Vermont residents can flaunt California law while in California, by asserting federal preemption. I thought that "cram down" was adequate shorthand.
I think they should remove the text "in their home state". My home state is CA. I can get a Utah CCW, but not one in CA.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
While private citizen gun ownership is protected by the
2nd Amendment, what is being advocated is unconstitutional.
This is the same method used to cram abortion down every
states throat. That too was unconstitutional, in the manner
it was done. Some states already had abortion legal, just like
conceal carry is legal in some states.
Another example of telling the individual states they have no
real sovereignty and controlled by the federal government.
Allowing this precedent to continue erodes the states authority.
I’m not happy in seeing this continue.

 
Written By: nbpundit
URL: http://gulfcoastpundit.com
Francis wrote:

the appropriate response, for someone who is pro-Constitution, to state violations of the federal constitution is for the federal government itself to violate the Constitution?

No one has made a case that the nationwide CCW policy would violate the Constitution.
The response to one wrong is to do another wrong,
See the above response.
as opposed to electing state representatives / judges who will follow the Constitution?
Umm... They already ain’t.
The Tenth and Eleventh Amendment bite the dust over carry laws?
X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from legitimately governing the personal owenership of items of military use.

XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


You’ll have to explicate the relevance to this debate, since the 14th amends this general prohibition with respect to the priveleges and immunities of the people—the 2nd amendment among others—and gives legislative powers to that effect to the Congress (and thereby, as magistrate, to the Executive, and to the Courts who construe the laws the President executes).

Try that for starters.

The 14th’s relevant clauses are below:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The states have no authority WRT the rights protected by the 2nd.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
And Congress gets to prohibit the states from undertaking such infringement—but they can’t pass bills of attainder or conduct unreasonable seizures to that end.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
That language necessarily means that Vermont residents can flaunt California law while in California, by asserting federal preemption.
This is incorrect as well. The law states that the person carrying must bear a license permitting them to do so from their home state. Vermont issues no such license or permit as concealed carry is held to resident’s right under the state constitution. Therefore Vermont residents would not be able to "flaunt California law" as you so put it. For the record Alaska has adopted a statutory system similar to Vermont carry, but they have a permit system in place as well.

Perhaps you should learn something about the various state concealed carry systems in the US before you opine? There are essentially only four types: may-issue, shall-issue, non-issue, and Vermont (state constitutional right). Or maybe read the bill itself?
It says bear, not bear openly.
It also doesn’t say bear concealed. Requiring open carry does not fundamentally infringe on your right to bear. You can still have a gun on your person anywhere and any time you want. Ok, there will probably be some statutory bounds knowing the current legal climate, but there will be those on concealed carry too. But open carry keeps the feds out of the states business as much as possible by not regulating concealed carry for them.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider