National Concealed Carry Reciprcity Fails by 2 votes

[Zed Snardbody]

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Wednesday rejected letting people carry hidden guns in 48 states if they have a concealed weapon permit in any one of them, a rare victory for gun control advocates in a Democratic-controlled Congress that has been friendly to the gun lobby.

Opponents said it would force states with tough concealed weapon permit restrictions to let in gun carriers from states that give permits to convicted criminals, minors and people with no firearms training.

"It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun.
A strong majority of the Senate, in a 58-39 vote, supported the measure, which would require most states to honor the concealed weapons permits issued by other states. But the tally was two votes short of the 60 votes needed to add the measure as an amendment to a defense bill.

Twenty Democrats, mainly from western or rural states, joined all but two Republicans in voting for the measure, which was promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. They included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and both Democratic senators from Colorado, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia.
There were also notable defections. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who voted to strip the District of Columbia of its gun control laws last February, opposed the concealed weapon measure. Specter was a Republican at the time of the previous vote.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a pro-gun rights Democrat who faces a primary challenge next year in a state with strong gun control sentiments, also opposed it. "I strongly believe that the gun laws that are right for New York are not necessarily right for South Dakota, and vice versa," she said.
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press that, despite the defeat, the vote showed that "we have the wind to our back." He called the vote "one more step down the road to allowing all Americans the full measure of Second Amendment protection."

Those who opposed it, LaPierre warned, "will see it reflected in support from their constituents."

The chief sponsor of the measure, South Dakota Republican John Thune, said it would reduce crime by allowing law-abiding citizens such as truck drivers to protect themselves as they travel from one state to another.

Opponents cited incidents they said proved the opposite.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., mentioned a Washington state man given a concealed weapons permit despite a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia who in 2008 shot and wounded three people at a public festival. In 2007 a Cincinnati woman with a permit to carry a concealed weapon shot and killed a panhandler who asked her for 25 cents at a gas station, he said.

The Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, released a study this week finding that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during the two-year period ending in April.
"The hard facts are that concealed handgun permit holders do not prevent mass shootings, they perpetrate them," said Kristen Rand, the center's legislative director.

Concealed weapons are allowed in 48 states. Alaska and Vermont allow any gun owner to carry a concealed gun. Wisconsin and Illinois don't allow them at all, except for law enforcement officers. The other 46 states require permits to carry a concealed gun.

Durbin noted that 11 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban reciprocity with other states, laws that would be overriden by the Thune amendment.

Thune's proposal would extend reciprocity to states that have carry laws, with the condition that visitors to another state follow the laws of that state, such as restrictions on concealed weapons in bars or restaurants. He stressed that it would not set up a national permit standard.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said his state, with its more stringent requirements for a concealed weapon, should not have to accept gun carriers from states with few or no restrictions.

Thune responded that "Central Park will be a much safer place" if someone from South Dakota could carry a gun in the New York City park.

Feinstein said California, the nation's most populous state, has issued about 40,000 concealed gun permits, while Florida has issued 580,000 and Georgia 300,000. Thune said about 5 million people nationwide have concealed weapons permits.

Last February the Senate voted 62-36 to eliminate most of the District of Columbia's strict gun control laws. In May, President Barack Obama signed into law a consumer credit card act that also restored the rights of people to carry loaded weapons in national parks. Sixty-seven senators voted for that gun amendment.

Congress has also ignored requests from Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that it revive a ban on military-style weapons that expired in 2004.

Link

[Alyeska]

The bill was overreaching. It didn't just try to get reciprocity, it wanted to overule individual state laws on guns themselves. The law would allow weapons legal in one state to be carried concealed into another state that has them illegal just by virtue of having the CCW from the legal state. Reciprocity on permits, I can agree with. A national CCW permit with mandated requirements that put more strength into the system over the lax states, but allows reciprocity in any state. But the ability to carry any concealed weapon by virtue of the CCW, regardless of state law was pushing it.

[Glocksman]

The bill was overreaching. It didn't just try to get reciprocity, it wanted to overule individual state laws on guns themselves. The law would allow weapons legal in one state to be carried concealed into another state that has them illegal just by virtue of having the CCW from the legal state. Reciprocity on permits, I can agree with. A national CCW permit with mandated requirements that put more strength into the system over the lax states, but allows reciprocity in any state. But the ability to carry any concealed weapon by virtue of the CCW, regardless of state law was pushing it.

Using the car analogy, as long as I don't become a legal resident of California, can they penalize me if my car (actually it is CA legal) isn't California smog legal while traveling on vacation to Los Angeles?

I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK they cannot.

Similarly, if I'm legally carrying a Glock with a CA probhibited 15 round magazine, I shouldn't suffer any penalty for doing so.

IF I'm doing it as a traveler under my Indiana LCTH, that is.

The real problem with reciprocal recognition is the lack of unified standards that all states recognize for CCW issuance.
For example, I have a lifetime Indiana LCTH, and the only qualifications were basically that I be eligible under Federal law to purchase a handgun and the ability to be fingerprinted and pay the >$100 fees involved.

Real strict, eh?

Contrast that with Kentucky, which at least requires a course of instruction on both the legal issues involved and a basic marksmanship course from a certfied instructor before issuance of a permit.
The car analogy breaks down here, as the states all have roughly equivalent requirements one must meet before issuing a driver's license, whereas gun licensing requirements vary* from Indiana's pretty leinent ones and Alaska's even more lenient ones, to Florida and Texas's requirments for training from a certified instructor.

Obviously, Indiana's carry license requirements fall far short of even Florida or Texas, never mind those of NY state or Washington DC.

A national permit system such as you describe is one I agree with, providing that the requirements to obtain one are both strict enough to insure that you can carry a firearm safely in public and are at least familiar with the laws regarding when you can use that gun.

Though due to varying laws in each state (duty to retreat vs. 'no retreat' for example) 'permissible' usage can differ wildly, so while I support the idea in theory, in practice there are problems.
Whereas with driver's licenses while there are state to state differences regarding driving law specifics, the variation isn't nearly to the degree found in CCW and self defense laws.

Until we have a set of nationwide objective standards for CCW licensure, it should be left up to the states to decide which out of state permits they choose to recognize.

For the record, not only does Indiana have a very mild set of qualifications to be met for issuance of a state licensed LCTH, we also recognize all out of state and foreign country issued carry permits.


*There are a couple of states that don't issue CCW's because concealed carry is totally legal (unless you are legally barred from owning a firearm) without any permit whatsoever.

[Coyote]

I think what made it unpalatable was that there was no 'minimum standard'. The lax rules in Alaska allowed people to get permits that would not be allowed in other states. But then, IIRC Alaska has some domestic violence offenses that are counted as misdemeanors which many other states use as disqualifiers for CCW.

If there had been a federal minimum standard that was agreed upon, it may well have passed.

[Alyeska]

The Car Trunk exception is only for weapons kept secured out of reach from the driver AND the driver is only passing through the state. A concealed weapon changes the equation entirely. A concealed weapon in theory can be held by the person for an extended period of time and be used, all in violation of state law if the CCW reciprocity law had passed.

[Exonerate]

I'm pretty sure I've heard Federal gun laws denounced as violations of State's Rights before, Republicans sure are consistent in enforcing them. On the same issue, no less. It must be nice to not have any actual consistency in a party platform.

[Alyeska]

I'm pretty sure I've heard Federal gun laws denounced as violations of State's Rights before, Republicans sure are consistent in enforcing them. On the same issue, no less. It must be nice to not have any actual consistency in a party platform.

The entire 14th amendment is a violation of states rights. That is a non issue. States can become more restrictive, but the Government through interstate commerce can dictate plenty about guns.

[Rogue 9]

I'm curious. What states issue carry permits to convicted criminals? Or is the Brady Campaign spewing bullshit again?

[Alyeska]

I'm curious. What states issue carry permits to convicted criminals? Or is the Brady Campaign spewing bullshit again?

Seeing as every CCW permit requires a background check, I suspect its bullshit. They might be counting misdemeanors.

[Gil Hamilton]

Using the car analogy, as long as I don't become a legal resident of California, can they penalize me if my car (actually it is CA legal) isn't California smog legal while traveling on vacation to Los Angeles?

I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK they cannot.

Similarly, if I'm legally carrying a Glock with a CA probhibited 15 round magazine, I shouldn't suffer any penalty for doing so.

IF I'm doing it as a traveler under my Indiana LCTH, that is.

Your analogy is extremely suspect. California has anti-smog regulations, yeah, but you can't reasonably do anything about that if you are visiting. You CAN however do something about your gun, that is, not carry it if it illegal to do so. After all, you are obliged to fall of the laws of the state you are in after all.

For example, if you come from an area that doesn't have open container laws and you come to Pittsburgh, for example, you can't tell the police officer that its legal where you are from and therefore you should be able to do it.

[Glocksman]

Using the car analogy, as long as I don't become a legal resident of California, can they penalize me if my car (actually it is CA legal) isn't California smog legal while traveling on vacation to Los Angeles?

I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK they cannot.

Similarly, if I'm legally carrying a Glock with a CA probhibited 15 round magazine, I shouldn't suffer any penalty for doing so.

IF I'm doing it as a traveler under my Indiana LCTH, that is.

Your analogy is extremely suspect. California has anti-smog regulations, yeah, but you can't reasonably do anything about that if you are visiting. You CAN however do something about your gun, that is, not carry it if it illegal to do so. After all, you are obliged to fall of the laws of the state you are in after all.

For example, if you come from an area that doesn't have open container laws and you come to Pittsburgh, for example, you can't tell the police officer that its legal where you are from and therefore you should be able to do it.

The analogy would hold up better if each state had roughly similar CCW training requirements.
Though I suppose the analogy works against my POV as well, because there are car accessories that are perfectly legal in one state and illegal in other states.

[Simon_Jester]

I partly agree with Glocksman; I wouldn't mind the idea of national concealed-carry permits if the conditions on the permit are restrictive enough that my state doesn't have to wory about gun-toting Alaskans who would never get a permit to carry in my state. Reciprocity works fine as long as the difficulty of getting the permits is more or less uniform.

On the other hand, I also think that anyone who voted for this bill should never, ever complain about a federal law affecting guns violating states' rights again.

The entire 14th amendment is a violation of states rights. That is a non issue. States can become more restrictive, but the Government through interstate commerce can dictate plenty about guns.

Question:

Do you mean that it "violates states' rights" in the sense of being unconstitutional? Or in the sense that states ought to have more rights than they have under the 14th Amendment, regardless of whether or not they actually do have those rights under today's Constitution?

I'm guessing the second, because the former is nonsense when we're talking about a constitutional amendment in the first place.

[Coyote]

It would have been worth it to see the reciprocity law pass simply because the barriers to things like gay marriage across the states & the likes would also have to be addressed.

This does open up a lot of other issues, though-- the drinking age was one of these things that was decided by states until the federally mandated law of 21. I remember when for most Western states it was 19. The interstate highway speed limit set at 55 mph for several years was another that used to be decided by the states, was federally mandated, and then rolled back again.

A federal concealed-carry law would probably have defaulted to the most restrictive states' in the union, meaning that whatever standards set by California and New York would have become the law of the nation. The mandate for training and to carry a lisence are not bad (I agree with them, really) but the sticking point would have been the "shall-issue" idea. I believe that in CA and NY, a gun permit can be denied for no reason, or the person applying has to show a reason to have it. In most other states, the gun permit is issued unless a compelling reason can be shown for not issuing it.

Opening the discussion about gay marriage, though would have been good, but there are a lot of other things that states decide for themselves that this would have opened for discussion. Utah's restrictions on alcohol sales, for one; load-bearing limits for trucks on highways; and things like age of consent laws also tend to differ from state to state. And of course, the elephant in the room that would have to be tackled would be if abortion is legal everywhere or nowhere.

For people who are terrified of increasing Federalism, I can see why they'd be concerned.

[Alyeska]

Do you mean that it "violates states' rights" in the sense of being unconstitutional? Or in the sense that states ought to have more rights than they have under the 14th Amendment, regardless of whether or not they actually do have those rights under today's Constitution?

I meant neither. I pointed out that the 14th amendment shits all over the bullshit claim of States Rights as a valid defense for justifying stupidity. The 14th amendment firmly tells the States to sit down and shut up because the Feds can and do have national authority on a number of issues. The 2nd amendment is NOT a states rights issue as its a fucking amendment to the constitution and is regulated by the commerce clause. The states can choose to enact stricter standards, but they have no right to preach states rights when wanting to defy federal standards.

[Alyeska]

A federal concealed-carry law would probably have defaulted to the most restrictive states' in the union, meaning that whatever standards set by California and New York would have become the law of the nation. The mandate for training and to carry a lisence are not bad (I agree with them, really) but the sticking point would have been the "shall-issue" idea. I believe that in CA and NY, a gun permit can be denied for no reason, or the person applying has to show a reason to have it. In most other states, the gun permit is issued unless a compelling reason can be shown for not issuing it.

Extremely unlikely. A number of states with CCW Laws are in practice banning concealed carry. They intentionally create laws so strict so as to make it impossible for people to get a permit unless they are rich or politically powerful. Such a standard enacted on a national level would never fly.

[Simon_Jester]

I meant neither. I pointed out that the 14th amendment shits all over the bullshit claim of States Rights as a valid defense for justifying stupidity...

Well... unconstitutional stupidity, anyway. All the Fourteenth Amendment says is that if the Federal government gives you a right to X, the states can't take that away. On issues where the federal government does not claim that you have a right or protection, the states can stupid away as much as they please.

I may be missing some detail in the interpretation of the language of the amendment here; could you kindly enlighten me?

[Count Chocula]

As a lifetime NRA member and soon-to-be CCW holder in Florida, I'm actually glad this failed. 30+ states, IIRC, already have reciprocity agreements. This would have trumped them, further diluting states' rights, even though it may have been perceived as a gain. In addition, last time I read the Constitution, there was no authority for Congress to set standards for concealed carry. My guess is the Dems made the right decision with the wrong justification.

[Questor]

As a lifetime NRA member and soon-to-be CCW holder in Florida, I'm actually glad this failed. 30+ states, IIRC, already have reciprocity agreements. This would have trumped them, further diluting states' rights, even though it may have been perceived as a gain.

I've been about as indoctrinated in the whole states rights thing as anyone, and even I have no idea what that means.

Oh, last time I checked, congress wasn't explicitly given the right to regulate marriage either, they still created a federal definition.

In addition, last time I read the Constitution, there was no authority for Congress to set standards for concealed carry.

Regulating interstate concealed carry would seem to fall under the interstate commerce clause. Especially as the weapons might be sold. As I said, the whole DOMA argument would work too.

Also, I seem to recall the word regulated being a rather prominent part of the Second Amendment as well. In fact, unless you leave out a few words (a favorite republitard tactic), it would seem that Congress is actually required to regulate the militia.

Oh, the actual text of the Second Amendment, just in case you've forgotten:

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.

[Coyote]

Well, bear in mind that requiring proof of training and then issuing a license that must be periodically reviewed is, in fact, "regulating".

[Count Chocula]

A quick note: the word "regulated" WRT Amendment 2 means "trained;" in other words, it applies to the reasoning for the right to keep and bear arms, not to what and where arms can be carried.

[Questor]

A quick note: the word "regulated" WRT Amendment 2 means "trained;" in other words, it applies to the reasoning for the right to keep and bear arms, not to what and where arms can be carried.

You said that congress had no authority to set standards for concealed carry. I provided three different ways.

And how is your statement A) inconsistent with what I said and B) inconsistent with the Federal Government requiring say, training (and setting standards for that training) and good character (and setting standards for that as well)?

Also, do you have any case law on this specific issue? A quick search didn't turn up any, but I'll admit I'm busy and didn't have time to do an exhaustive search. All I seemed to come up with in google were issue sites. Lexis is at work and I'm not going in just to research this.

[Tsyroc]

In addition, last time I read the Constitution, there was no authority for Congress to set standards for concealed carry.

Regulating interstate concealed carry would seem to fall under the interstate commerce clause. Especially as the weapons might be sold. As I said, the whole DOMA argument would work too.

Also, I seem to recall the word regulated being a rather prominent part of the Second Amendment as well. In fact, unless you leave out a few words (a favorite republitard tactic), it would seem that Congress is actually required to regulate the militia.

Oh, the actual text of the Second Amendment, just in case you've forgotten:

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.

I recently saw somewhere where it was interpreted that individuals needed the right to bear arms because it was expected and necessary for the government to have a "well regulated militia" and since it was considered a fact that the government was going to have the ability to exert force through that militia then the people would need to be able to exert force in return as a step to prevent tyranny. (Those Founding Fathers were all about preventing tyranny).

I found it an interesting interpretation because it sort of pulls the regulated bit away from the individual firearm owner and puts it on the government run militia (police, army etc..). It also does not make the assumption that everyone who owns a firearm will be part of the militia. An extreme interpretation would then be that there should be no regulation on private firearm ownership.

Personally, I'm much happier with the various states working it out amongst themselves as to reciprocity. I wouldn't want to have to have some of the crazy assed gun laws of California and some Eastern states foisted on me and I wouldn't expect them to have to accept "licensed in another state" as excuse for having to put up with guns and practices that are totally against their laws.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why not just create a federal system where you go to any Federal police agency to get a federal concealed carry license with uniform, suitably strict standards, which lets you carry anywhere in US territory except on an aircraft flight? Then if you really want to carry a concealed weapon across state lines that badly, you'd just go to the nearest federal building and sign all the necessary forms and if you meet the necessary training and background qualifiers the federal agency you applied through must automatically issue it, and it trumps all state regulation and law. That would be far safer and more effective, and no more restrictove of States' Rights than what was actually proposed here.

[Starglider]

Why not just create a federal system... which lets you carry anywhere in US territory except on an aircraft flight?

Firstly because it shits on Wisconsin and Illinois, both Democratic states, by overruling their decision not to allow concealed carry at all. Secondly because that's a blatant expansion of Federal power and remit that even Republicans can't vote for while still criticising 'big government' with a straight face.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why not just create a federal system... which lets you carry anywhere in US territory except on an aircraft flight?

Firstly because it shits on Wisconsin and Illinois, both Democratic states, by overruling their decision not to allow concealed carry at all. Secondly because that's a blatant expansion of Federal power and remit that even Republicans can't vote for while still criticising 'big government' with a straight face.

I suppose it would be seen as a more serious expansion of federal power as even as this law itself is functionally no different in how it tramples on States' Rights, but alas, because it would actually make sense.