Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[Merge]

Any opinions on this bill passing through the house yesterday?

I think dems in the senate would filibuster so I am not sure it can get through there, although the NRA has a tremendous amount of power so I wouldn't be entirely shocked if republicans change the rules to allow its passage.

Really don't like the idea at all #1 and #2 I'm not sure how it can be constitutional as it removes state rights to create their own regulations.

 

[Pirata]

#2 I'm not sure how it can be constitutional as it removes state rights to create their own regulations.

That will be a 10th Amendment argument.

Any opinions on this bill passing through the house yesterday?

Really don't like the idea at all #1

This is obviously a heated (no pun intended) topic. It is a wide topic as well.

One dimensional of this is the recreational gun owner and enthusiast. I do not consider myself avid, but I have shot competitive rifle in high school and college, handled all kinds of weapons in the Army, and now do some clays and indoor range.

I have a concealed carry permit because it adds a great convenience when transporting weapons. I don't have to worry about separating ammunition and weapon. Without the permit, if I make a mistake and have some ammo and a gun in the passenger compartment, I can go to jail.

I live in PA and my gun range is on the PA/NJ border. Right now if I went to the range and wanted to scoot over to NJ for whatever reason, I gotta be real sure I do it the right way.

I'd like to see the CC permit broken out with a separate "Transport Permit" to handle the things I mentioned above.

I favor having deeper restrictions on the actual concealed carry part of the permit. Anyone who owns guns responsibly understands the training and practice you need to undertake to do it right.

In my county, getting a concealed carry permit is a matter of paying $20 to the Sherriff's Office. They do not require any training. Zip. Nada. That is a bit nuts in my mind. Remember, Plaxico. A true idiot. There is carrying. There is carrying with the clip in. And then there is carrying with the clip in and one in the chamber. If you do that you better know what your are doing.

The idea of people being allowed to carry with one in the chamber and having zero training is scary.

Other scenarios include such things as traveling to Maine to go hunting. If I pass through NJ, NY, MA, and NH to do so, do I risk going to jail? It is not uncommon for a hunter to carry a side arm for protection.

I realize there is a whole other argument regarding criminals and crazies carrying concealed. Perhaps we can cover that in another post.

 

[Merge]

This is mostly a though exercise for now so I do appreciate your input especially since I am not a gun owner.

I get the transport concerns. I do think that is valid and maybe they can address that separately, but otherwise I just think each state has entirely different cultures / circumstances and this is something that should be left for each state to decide.

 

[SPK145]

Any opinions on this bill passing through the house yesterday?

I think dems in the senate would filibuster so I am not sure it can get through there, although the NRA has a tremendous amount of power so I wouldn't be entirely shocked if republicans change the rules to allow its passage.

Really don't like the idea at all #1 and #2 I'm not sure how it can be constitutional as it removes state rights to create their own regulations.

Seems appropriate to me, same as with drivers licenses.

 

[Merge]

Seems appropriate to me, same as with drivers licenses.

but states make their own traffic laws. Generally the same with some variation.

Gun license means you can own a gun. Each state can regulate them, no?
Same as cars.

 

[SPK145]

but states make their own traffic laws. Generally the same with some variation.

Gun license means you can own a gun. Each state can regulate them, no?
Same as cars.

Same as a drivers license.

 

[Merge]

Same as a drivers license.

Right... Like someone from Arizona can not drive in NJ and text on their phone.
Even though that is legal in AZ, that is not legal in NJ.

I can't make a right on red in Manhattan even though it is legal in the state which issued my license.

 

[SPK145]

Right... Like someone from Arizona can not drive in NJ and text on their phone.
Even though that is legal in AZ, that is not legal in NJ.

I can't make a right on red in Manhattan even though it is legal in the state which issued my license.

Hmm, but you can take your car into those states????

 

[Merge]

Hmm, but you can take your car into those states????

Yep as we have established Freedom of movement between the states and an agreement between the states to allow drivers from other states to use travel in each state.
I imagine a state could theoretically block travelers from other states but it wouldn't really make any sense to do so.

I'd be ok with all states recognizing some kind of transportation agreement for guns, but feel that CCR extends too far as Pirata was suggesting where even untrained can carry in some states.

 

[Pirata]

The car and license analogy is good but can only go so far. Cars are not protected under the 2nd Amendment nor any other Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment:

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.

The 10th Amendment:

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 argument then comes down to whether the State regulation infringes upon keeping (owning) or bearing (carrying) weapons. If it does, the 2nd Amendment trumps (no pun intended) the 10th.

The NRA has taken an hard stand that any regulation is an infringement and they aggressively use the slippery slope argument.

Gun opponents argue that the criminals and crazies are an unreasonable threat to society and we must regulate and restrict guns. Law abiding gun owners come back with the argument that the guns are not the issue, the person is.

The 2nd Amendment is not going away anytime soon. I get it that it was written 225 years ago for a purpose that has evolved. That notwithstanding, while it remains in the Constitution, it is an extremely powerful tool for the pro-gun, anti-regulation side.

I do think we should have a reasonable re-write of the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the fundamental tenet of the 2nd but think it needs to be updated to reflect the world as it is today. I also recognize that is not an easy thing to do and we will likely stay with the political fight we have today.

 

[Pirata]

I'd be ok with all states recognizing some kind of transportation agreement for guns, but feel that CCR extends too far as Pirata was suggesting where even untrained can carry in some states.

For the record:

I am opposed to allowing CC without proper training and a solid background and ownership process. I am not opposed to cross-state CC and CC in general. If asked, I can present what I believe are valid reasons to responsibly carry.

I am an NRA member but don't agree with everything they do. I think they take liberty with the 2nd Amendment.

For example, if you buy a boat, in many states you have to take a boating safety course to get a license. In all states you have take a driving test to get a driver's license. To fly a plane you need X hours of instruction and must pass a test. To get your scuba tanks filled, you have to be certified. To operate a gun, all you need to do is survive a background check and if you want to carry, then just fork over $20 to the Sheriff for the CC permit.

I don't think any of these requirements infringe on my rights. The big difference between boats, cars, planes, scuba tanks, and guns is the 2nd Amendment. In that sense, the 2nd Amendment has hurt us. It has prevented intelligent regulation from being implemented. In the case of cross-state CC, the disparate regulations result in 2nd Amendment rights being infringed. Ironic.

 

[Merge]

The NRA has taken an hard stand that any regulation is an infringement and they aggressively use the slippery slope argument.

I think Scalia acknowledged that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited in one opinion though.

Similarly we have the freedom of speech but there is some speech that is not legal, although I don't believe certain speech is regulated differently between the states so not an entirely similar issue.

I do think we should have a reasonable re-write of the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the fundamental tenet of the 2nd but think it needs to be updated to reflect the world as it is today. I also recognize that is not an easy thing to do and we will likely stay with the political fight we have today.

I agree we do probably need one, but are not likely to get one.
I believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect us against a tyrannical government? Unless the 2nd amendment applies to drones and tanks and the trillions of dollars to get them, I don't think that is a fight we win... so the amendment as written has sort of outlived its intent. I do believe that citizens should be able to own a gun for self protection though so I wouldn't want to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pirata]

I believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect us against a tyrannical government?

There is of course much debate about that.

I don't think that was the primary purpose.

It was related to the anticipated use of Militia as part of the common national defense.

"A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel"

The idea was to have a minimal standing army (fiscal conservatives!) and then use militia as reserves. Given that militia were citizen soldiers, the 2nd Amendment authorized citizens to have arms for training and readiness.

That need is no longer valid.