Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?

[ericire12]

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080622184453zzzz.nb/topstory.html

After working closely with Gun Owners of America (GOA), Louisiana Republican Senator, David Vitter, is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill in Congress next week.

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter's bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states allowing concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

[TAB]

no they are not going federal( that would actually violate the USCONS)... If that bill were to pass, it will be struck down.  This bill does more damage to the CCW cuase then any other bill I've ever seen.  He is doing it just to get the "gun vote"

[Solus]

no they are not going federal( that would actually violate the USCONS)... If that bill were to pass, it will be struck down.  This bill does more damage to the CCW cuase then any other bill I've ever seen.  He is doing it just to get the "gun vote"

Tab,

How is the bill bad for the CCW cause?  Do you think it will lessen the likelihood that states will pass CCW legislation because they don't want to automatically honor CCW permits from other states?

 

[TAB]

Tab,

How is the bill bad for the CCW cause?  Do you think it will lessen the likelihood that states will pass CCW legislation because they don't want to automatically honor CCW permits from other states?

 

That will happen...  I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws,  but thats not the  reasons why I think its bad.  I think its bad for 2 reasons:

1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.

2  The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.


This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one.    Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee.  Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state. 

[Solus]

That will happen...  I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws,  but thats not the  reasons why I think its bad.  I think its bad for 2 reasons:

1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.

2  The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.


This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one.    Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee.  Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state. 

I was not aware there was a Federal Driver License standard everyone was required to meet, and would have said there was not.

Do you know this guy?  What makes you think he is doing it on the advice of folks and to just get votes?

I'm also not sure on what grounds it is unconstitutional?  Except maybe because it is a infringement of the 2A even though it is "reducing" the infringement of the States?

[Sponsor]

[tumblebug]

 CDL [truckers]

[DDMac]

Seems like another unfunded Federal mandate on the States, and a States' rights issue to boot. As it now stands, Fed law does not deal with how you carry, concealed or not, just if you can legally carry (not a felon,etc) in an unrestricted location (ie. not on planes).

Don't think it will even get noticed in Congress.
Mac.

[TAB]

I was not aware there was a Federal Driver License standard everyone was required to meet, and would have said there was not.

Do you know this guy?  What makes you think he is doing it on the advice of folks and to just get votes?

I'm also not sure on what grounds it is unconstitutional?  Except maybe because it is a infringement of the 2A even though it is "reducing" the infringement of the States?

Lets see,
we will start with artical 4.  Then move onto the 10th amendment.  Then there is the stack of laws on interstate commerce that would apply.

I'm sure a legal egale could find dozens of laws on the books and case law that would make this law void....

your right, I don't know if he is doing it to get the "gun vote",  he could just be an idiot. ( he is doing it for the gun vote)

[Wheelgun Dunn]

Here is the text from GOA's website:

"Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill next week.

Senator Vitter had been working closely with Gun Owners of America to draft and file a reciprocity amendment a few weeks ago, but that amendment, unfortunately, never saw the light of day -- thanks to powerful opponents inside the Senate.

However, Sen. Vitter has continued undaunted and last week sent a Dear Colleague letter to his fellow senators, asking them to cosponsor his forthcoming bill, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.

States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.

Citizens should not be forced to sacrifice their right to self-defense at the state line. The Vitter bill will allow more Americans to defend themselves away from their home state."

Sounds reasonable to me.  States rights are respected, and I would have the ability to protect myself wherever I traveled.  If I am a law abiding citizen in SC then I will be wherever I go.  I am not interested in a national license though, too close to registration!

Wheelgun

[TAB]

Sounds reasonable to me.  States rights are respected, and I would have the ability to protect myself wherever I traveled.  If I am a law abiding citizen in SC then I will be wherever I go.  I am not interested in a national license though, too close to registration!

Wheelgun

But the states are not respected.    That bill would allow one states law to superseed anothers state law outside the bounds of said state.

Lets replace CCW with something else.   Say  Contracting lic.   Would you hire an out of state contractor that does not meet your states reqs to be come a contractor?  For example, in some states felons can be contractors,  In others they can't.  Some states require X number of years in a trade, others its just a test.  Some states don't even have tests, just fill out the paper work, pay the fee.

I have GC in 4 states,  CA, OR, NV and AZ.  All of them have drasticly differnt reqs.  The codes in diffrent states also varrys drasticly, hell even one building department to another has diffrent regs.