Nationwide CCW passes House

The House of Representatives passed a bill that would make a state permit to carry a concealed firearm valid in almost every other state in the country.

Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons.

“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by state boundary lines,” said GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Hmmmm…. I am conflicted. On one hand, I am all for it. I have a permit to carry in Iowa but a person barely needs to carry in Iowa. I need to carry when I travel. This would make that a hell of a lot easier.

On the other hand, I have a hard time getting on board with federal legislation that forces states to comply with police laws against their will. I don’t like it when the feds do it with health care and I think this isn’t all that different. These policies should be determined at the state level. A gun law that works fine in Montana may need some tweaks in Maryland.

More here where the AP manages to work in mention of Gabrielle Giffords in the second sentence.

Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Nationwide CCW passes House

  1. locke n load says:

    Ya know RD, I might agree with you regarding infringement of 10th amendment sensibilities but I think in this case …
    You might just look at it as a law protecting our 2nd against states that choose to dismantle our constitution as they see fit. Too many states want to pick and choose which constitutional rights we can excercise and under which circumstances. National carry just asserts the primacy of the 2nd amendment. And if you really want to stretch it you might argue Interstate Commerce (say, shooting clubs or truckers) could occasionally require portability.
    Tell ya what, this might make it a lot easier for ME to carry protection in my truck without harassment

  2. Notamobster says:

    How does this equate to healthcare?

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    The bill doesn’t treat it as a real 2nd Amendment deal. For example, even if the bill became a law, you still couldn’t carry in Illinois. So in that sense, it doesn’t protect your right to carry.

    The bill basically says that, if a state allows CCW, it has to respect the permitting of all other states that have CCW. As you know, there is a range of requirements. If one state says that CCW requires training, that would mean only for people from that state. The people from the next state over who don’t have to be trained could carry in the first state without any training.

    Basically this bill makes State A accept the rules of State B. I admit I am okay with that for the most part but only because I think the vast majority of people can be trusted with weapons. The same interstate rule applies to drivers licences today. Something about it nags at me a little however.

    Nota: It is like Obamacare in that it is the feds imposing one standard on the states.

  4. Bman says:

    On this issue, the Demoncraps are all for states rights, thus they are against this bill. I love how they are sometimes for states rights, and sometime against states rights, (Obamacare).

  5. Woodface says:

    My Arkansas CCW is recognized already (and voluntarily) by 38 states and I am not sure I would have any good reason to go to the others.

    I am all about the right to carry and bear, etc… but I am not sure that this isnt another case of the government wasting time on something that isnt a real problem anyway and further eroding states rights in the process. CCW rights are (at least at present) increasing nationwide not eroding.

    Do these guys not have other things to go “fix”? I have some ideas if they need them.

  6. rj says:

    reciprical recongition of CHL is inportant and it should be recognized at state level.

    Agreed that some states pick and choose which constitutional rights to allow causes me a lotta heartburn, I mean I have the same rights everywhere.

    I’d feel better if it specifically prohibited a non CHL state from prosecuting someone for simple carrying if that person is licensed in their own state.

    Call me paranoid, but is/does this require a federal database to verify CHL from another state. If so then it needs reworked.

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    For years, Iowa had a weird “may issue” system that was allowed the sheriff of each county to decide whether he wants to issue or not. If, however, you lived in a county where the sheriff did issue, the permit was good all over the state.

    So, if you lived in Johnson County, which had a sheriff who didn’t issue, you couldn’t carry anywhere in the state. If you lived just across the county line in Cedar County, you could get a permit and carry everywhere; including in Johnson County.

    In other words, there were always people carrying in Johnson County, just not the residents of Johnson County.

    It seems kind of messed up that the people of, say, Ohio believe a training class and qualification at the range is necessary and then all the people from other states that don’t have such requirements can carry in Ohio without it. In other words, the Ohio permit holders are trained and qualified and out of staters aren’t because the federal government imposed that on them.

    I could argue the other side just as forcefully but I tend to error on the side of states’ rights.

  8. sortahwitte says:

    I agree with Wf. There are plenty of more pressing issues and seemingly an inability to focus on what matters. It must have been fun to play fuck-around for a couple of days in the House chamber, but it boils down to more time wasting. I’m sure they will have congressional hearings on pedophilia in colleges. That will only matter to the college of cardinals.

    For the sake of all that’s cherished in this nation, if you’re a congressman in dc that does nothing but pull your pud, resign and do it somewhere else.

  9. trebor snoyl says:

    States have different requirements for issuing drivers licenses, too, yet they all recognize out-of-state DLs. This is realy a non-issue except for the anti-gunners that want to make it one.

  10. Uke says:

    I’m as far from an anti-gunner as has ever been, but I’m inclined to say that the issue of concealed carry is one covered by the 10th Amendment, rather than the 2nd.

    The 2nd covers the “keeping” and “bearing” of arms. Neither act technically requires that said arms be concealed.

    That is not to say that I don’t cherish my CCW permit; I do. I just feel that issues regarding concealment may very well be something that individual states can determine on their own… as long as they freely allow their citizens to openly carry if the citizen chooses to do so.

  11. Locke n Load says:

    I was going to bark something about none of the amendments being able to nullify the others, therefore the primacy of the 2nd would necessarily trump any 10th restrictions thereupon…
    but then you went and put THIS in there..
    …as long as they freely allow their citizens to openly carry if the citizen chooses to do so.

    well put Uke, but it seems to me that open carry ISN’T allowed in every state and thats why, if nothing else, this little law is important. By having so damned many restrictions on all types of carry we beg the involvement of the Feds in this regard. Same argument justified the insertion of the Commerce clause.

    When states variably introduce legislation that otherewise restricts our federally guaranteed rights it is the duty of the feds to defend the the primacy of said constitutional provisions.

  12. Uke says:

    but it seems to me that open carry ISN’T allowed in every state

    I know in Philly they make you have a CCWP in order to carry openly, but otherwise I don’t know of whole states that prohibit open carry.

    FWIW, I’d still take Philly to court over that law. Making someone jump through hoops just to “keep and bear arms,” even in an open manner, seems a clear constitutional infraction.

    When states variably introduce legislation that otherewise restricts our federally guaranteed rights it is the duty of the feds to defend the the primacy of said constitutional provisions.

    I agree wholeheartedly. The only question is whether the issue of concealment a federally guaranteed right.

    I thought for a moment, when I started my last post, that it might be. But as I composed my post I realized (or at least concluded) that it’s not.

    If a state were to want all its gun owners to carry their shootin’ irons on their thighs, and NO ONE allowed to conceal… so be it. I wouldn’t want to live there, but it seems constitutionally kosher, at least.

  13. Rockheim says:

    I think that this is an issue for the Federal Government. We’re dealing with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And no state can willfully violate the rights set forth therein.
    Whether the debate is one of the 2nd alone, the 10th or whatever. It should be a matter of “These are the rights spelled out in the Constitution of this Country. Therefore there will be a National permit to bear arms in public.”

    I can actually get behind something like that. However. the caveat is that the devil is ALWAYS in the details. How restrictive, cumbersome or costly will it be to get one? The opportunity for a yearly “fee” for such licensing isn’t one that will go unnoticed.

    However. Those are details to be hammered out later. but the point remains. Due to the language of the 2nd (and the 10th if you choose to include it) and holding that the states are bound by the Constitution, this could be a Federal issue.

    Of course.. then there’s the issue of states ratification of individual amendments.. Just to throw another wrench into the works..

  14. Uke says:

    @Rock:
    The point is that if concealed carry is a 10th Amendment issue, then it’s not a federal issue, by definition.

    Best I can tell by this case, this bill only pertains to concealed carry. And thus, to me, this is not something that should be federally legislated.

    I admit that the argument CAN be made that a CCWP is the only practical way to carry a weapon these days; you don’t want to give away the element of surprise, to let the bad guy know who is carrying, and thus that infringing upon the concealed carry of a weapon is indeed infringing upon one’s right to bear arms. However, I think that’s a fairly thin argument.

  15. Locke n Load says:

    Uke,
    Heres a nice little map of the open carry/concealed carry states.

    http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html

    Considering the bizarre patchwok and highly variable laws I’d say the effect is to restrict carry considerably. As the new law clarifies the concealed question, wouldn’t that eliminate a layer of the confusion? Besides, there wasn’t reciprocality between a LOT of these CCW states in the first place and the new law straightens THAT mess out too.
    Seems to me the new law at least streamlines a lot of the guesswork as you travel. Again, if nothing else this is a commerce clause justification. When laws of one state restrict or contradict laws from neighboring states regarding constitutionally guaranteed rights, the Fed is justified stepping in to clarify the issue.

  16. Bman says:

    My thought of this is very simple: the 2nd amendment gives lawful citizens the right to carry, period. Whether you choose to carry your firearm concealed in your underwear, or wear it as a hat.

    If it is our right to keep and bear arms, why are states allowed to dictate how we choose to do this? Are people telling me that California can use the 10th amendment to make it a crime for open carry, (even though the gun must be unloaded)? They are trying to even make that a crime as we speak.

    The 2nd amendment is what it is, and no state has the right to dictate how it is chosen to be carried out. Just my 2 cents.

  17. R.D. Walker says:

    So, hypothetically…

    Say the people of Kansas decide that, in order to receive a CCW, you must pass a proficiency test with your weapon. The people of Nebraska, on the other hand, say no test is necessary. The people of Kansas must, therefore, allow untested Nebraskans carry in Kansas? Even though untested Kansans aren’t allowed to do so?

    Say that Mississippi allows violent offenders who have served their time carry and Alabama doesn’t. Does Alabama have to allow violent Mississippians to carry in Alabama?

    Unless proficiency tests and violent offender restrictions are violations of the 2nd Amendment, I’d say that is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

  18. Bman says:

    I see nothing wrong with states having proficiency tests, just like drivers licenses. I’m saying why do states make up the rules as they go along concerning the 2nd Amendment? People have the right to carry and bear arms. Why is it up to the states to dictate how that action is performed? You either have the right and can excercise it how you see fit. Why is a concealed weapon somehow different than open carry? Does the Constitution not give you the right to bear arms or does it not? Of course it does! So the states can say, “well of course it is a right! But in our state, you have to have in unloaded, it must be painted flourescent pink, and it can only fire beanbag rounds….”

  19. R.D. Walker says:

    “I see nothing wrong with states having proficiency tests…”

    Okay then, if NoDak requires proficiency tests and Iowa doesn’t, and the feds legislate that NoDak must accept Iowa permit holders, I can carry in NoDak without a proficiency test. I can, but you can’t.

  20. Bman says:

    We are moving away from my original argument. My question is that if we have a right to keep and bear arms, why do states get to dictate how we choose to do this, whether they be concealed, (if we choose that) or not.

  21. R.D. Walker says:

    I don’t think very many people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right with no restrictions whatsoever. That isn’t the NRA’s position and, evidently, it isn’t yours. Therefore the states get to decide what restrictions they will apply within the context of the 2nd Amendment.

  22. Bman says:

    “Effective July 29, 2010, Arizona citizens are now allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a concealed carry permit.”

    1. Arizona CCW Permit Holders are entitled to reciprocity with 35 other states, while in possession of an AZ CCW Permit, provided you follow the gun laws for the state you are visiting. Without the AZ CCW Permit, you may be in violation of several state laws while carrying concealed in other states.

    I see nothing wrong with this. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers would agree with me that this should be the case for all states.

  23. Rockheim says:

    I see it a little differently..

    I’m of the opinion that the state CAN regulate how you can carry. Not if.
    The right to bear arms is a Federal issue. And the Constitution is, and should be, the final arbiter of that.
    Due to the vagueness of the specific wording however, gives that final wiggle room to the States to legislate.

    That all said there needs to be a standard. Here in Indiana all you need is a pulse and moderately clear criminal record to be issued a CCW permit. Elsewhere it’s different. I’m also opposed to the idea that I can get a CCW permit from Iowa, Florida or any other state that I’m not a resident of.
    I can’t get a DL from another state.. Why should a firearm permit be different?
    There are all kinds of problems with that system.

  24. R.D. Walker says:

    Bman: I see nothing wrong with it either. It is, however, the rule in Arizona and it shouldn’t be imposed on the people of, say, North Carolina.

    Just a minute ago you said you had no problem with proficiency tests. Obviously Arizonans don’t need to take proficiency tests to carry. Should Arizonans be allowed to carry without restriction in Ohio which does require proficiency tests?

  25. R.D. Walker says:

    Actually guys, this is one of those issues in which I feel strongly both ways. 90% of the time when I want to carry I am not in Iowa. I wish it were easier.

    On the other hand I have argued the 10th Amendment and states’ rights again and again here and I want to stay intellectually honest and not say I believe in states rights only when they benefit me and not when they don’t.

  26. frjm says:

    RD

    Yes RD, but obama care is illegal and requires us to do something, The new CCW law ALLOWS US TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

  27. Bman says:

    “Just a minute ago you said you had no problem with proficiency tests. Obviously Arizonans don’t need to take proficiency tests to carry. Should Arizonans be allowed to carry without restriction in Ohio which does require proficiency tests?”

    Again, I see nothing wrong with a proficiency test if it is required from that state, (don’t get my argument for being allowed to concealed carry in all states be confused for this 10th Amendment issue)

    Keeping and bearing arms is no different than concealed carry in my book. If I choose to keep and bear arms under my clothing, no state has a right to say I cannot. Thats my argument. If a state has a law stating you must pass a proficiency test, then fine. But all states must recognize concealed carry if they are to be consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Thats my argument.

  28. Rockheim says:

    And that’s why there need to be Federal guidance on this and removed from the hands of the states.

    As it stands right now you have a patchwork of regulations and standards that vary from state to state. There is currently nothing from stopping all 50 states from adopting 50 different CCW statutes, not recognizing anyone elses save their own and requiring that any person carrying through must possess that State’s individual license. At whatever cost the state deems appropriate.
    For example.. Illinois could buckle tomorrow and state that CCW is allowed. however you must take this $2000 class for licensing and pay $500 per year for renewal. Wisconsin could follow suit, California could like that and double down.. Etc etc..

  29. R.D. Walker says:

    frjm: Actually, the law of the land under the District of Coumbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago states that local restrictions including those that “prohibit the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill,” and “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are permissible under the 2nd Amendment.

  30. diegokid says:

    What if you are flying to HI. If you have a legal CCW couldn’t you now carry it with you by federal law?

  31. R.D. Walker says:

    You can carry declared, unloaded firearms in checked baggage.

  32. J.W."Lucky" says:

    Its easy to solve this whole ordeal.
    If you have any violent crimes or most importantly have been a convicted fellon then you simply can not possess a concealed weapon license and if you are found with a cw with out a license then you go to jail. If you are one of the lucky ones that do not have a police record and can produce a ccwl then no matter where you are in the UNITED STATES should you not be harassed about having a weapon on your person. After all you’ve had background checks and finger prints taken and clearly are not a threat to society

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *