PDA

View Full Version : A national CCW system


Sobriquet
07-24-2008, 5:45 PM
What are the odds we'll see an attempt to nationalize CCW permits? What legal hurdles stand in the way of that becoming a reality?

sorensen440
07-24-2008, 5:49 PM
see an attempt? almost 100%

Matt C
07-24-2008, 5:49 PM
What are the odds we'll see an attempt to nationalize CCW permits? What legal hurdles stand in the way of that becoming a reality?

Are you in favor of this? Why on earth would you want MORE federal regulation?!?! It *MIGHT* benefit us in CA, but what about people living in shall issue sates or Vermont/Alaska... This is a non-starter for me.

dfletcher
07-24-2008, 6:21 PM
Federal regulation of CCW - a federal permit so to speak - may sound OK now but what can be given by the feds can also be restricted by the feds. Put in place would be a system by which rights could be expanded or restricted depending on the make up of Congress and the executive branch. The federal government being what it is, they would want their federal CCW to usurp state CCW, not a good thing for most states.

Ask yourself, what would Janet Reno do to a federal CCW law? Or who would Obama appoint as Atty General and how would they view a federal CCW? Instead of Texas CCW law for the entire country it could be San Fran restrictions for everyone.

CaliforniaCarry
07-24-2008, 6:22 PM
Are you in favor of this? Why on earth would you want MORE federal regulation?!?! It *MIGHT* benefit us in CA, but what about people living in shall issue sates or Vermont/Alaska... This is a non-starter for me.

I agree. What the feds give, the feds can take away. Instead we should be pushing for universal reciprocity at the state level.

dustoff31
07-24-2008, 6:24 PM
Bills regarding nation wide reciprocity for CCWs has been introduced but haven't gotten anywhere for the last four or five years.

That would be OK with me, but I agree with BlackwaterOps, getting the feds in on issuing CCWs isn't necessarily a good thing.

CCWFacts
07-24-2008, 6:27 PM
see an attempt? almost 100%

More like 600%.

As of right now, there are half a dozen different national recip bills in the works:


SB 388 - it's doing pretty well, 31 co-sponsors
HR 861 - house counterpart to SB 388, also doing well
HR 5782 - got a lot of sponsors so far
SB 3207 - yet another Senate national recip bill
HR 226 - it was the counterpart to SB 388, but it's now dead
SA 4757 - Vitter amendment to HR 980


So there are half a dozen different efforts in Congress, and yet none have gotten enough momentum to pass. I really wish they would. They all need a discharge petition, because I can tell you that Speaker Pelosi would eat a bowl full of broken glass before she allows any of these to come to the floor for a vote. A discharge petition allows the house or senate to force something out of committees and to the floor for a vote. I assume that these bills would pass if they came to the floor for a vote, but the Democratic committee chairs would rather peel their own skin off than let that happen.

AEC1
07-24-2008, 8:15 PM
I am all for reciprocity or however it is spelled ;) but a federal reg is BAD BAD BAD BAD. Would rather bet a BJ from a rabid pit bull...

mymonkeyman
07-24-2008, 9:11 PM
I am all for reciprocity or however it is spelled ;) but a federal reg is BAD BAD BAD BAD. Would rather bet a BJ from a rabid pit bull...

I understand why Conservatives have the automatic Fed=Bad, State=Good reaction. But when it comes to guns, and you live in California, it's not always the case. A federal reciprocity law would be nothing but good and is the only way that comprehensive reciprocity is going to occur.

RomanDad
07-24-2008, 9:20 PM
I understand why Conservatives have the automatic Fed=Bad, State=Good reaction. But when it comes to guns, and you live in California, it's not always the case. A federal reciprocity law would be nothing but good and is the only way that comprehensive reciprocity is going to occur.

Its not the ONLY way.

AEC1
07-24-2008, 9:20 PM
I understand why Conservatives have the automatic Fed=Bad, State=Good reaction. But when it comes to guns, and you live in California, it's not always the case. A federal reciprocity law would be nothing but good and is the only way that comprehensive reciprocity is going to occur.

I know CA has it bad, but at least we can go to FL and UT and get non res. If it goes FED then Palosi is in control of the NATIONS rights...

Plus I am in the Military and a FL resident, will go back in 3 years......

CCWFacts
07-24-2008, 9:20 PM
I understand why Conservatives have the automatic Fed=Bad, State=Good reaction. But when it comes to guns, and you live in California, it's not always the case. A federal reciprocity law would be nothing but good and is the only way that comprehensive reciprocity is going to occur.

I agree. We should support this law. It is in no way creating a federal system. It's just saying that every state must recognize the CCW of every other state, just like they already recognizes drivers licenses, marriages, blah blah blah. There are so many places where federal power is expanding, when it shouldn't (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/413.html). This one area is not an expansion of federal power, and it helps us.

And yet, plenty of gun owners have their minds closed and will oppose this. We can't stay out of our own way sometimes.

mblat
07-24-2008, 9:22 PM
If federal reciprocity will ever become reality it WILL contain "compliance with federally mandated requirements" whatever those requirements may be: minimal amount of training, including live fire, vision tests, phyc profile, requirements to licenses them self, like picture, fingerprint, capability being instantly checked via some kind of central system.

So in essence it WILL be federal license with all good and bad that comes with it.

CCWFacts
07-24-2008, 9:28 PM
If federal reciprocity will ever become reality it WILL contain "compliance with federally mandated requirements" whatever those requirements may be: minimal amount of training, including live fire, vision tests, phyc profile, requirements to licenses them self, like picture, fingerprint, capability being instantly checked via some kind of central system.

So in essence it WILL be federal license with all good and bad that comes with it.

WRONG. That is totally WRONG. I listed SIX national recip bills that are currently in Congress. NOT ONE of them specifies any federally-mandated requirements. NONE. They have dozens of sponsors and they do not, and will not, contain any federally mandated requirements for CCW.

HELLO, WAKE UP! These bills are structured EXACTLY the same way as FOPA's "safe passage" provisions, which allow a person in transit from one state to another be exempt from the gun laws of intervening states he travels through. It does not in any way set standards or standardized gun laws; FOPA's safe passage just says, "if it's legal in the state of origin, and in the state of destination, you can disregard the laws of other states you travel through to get there." This is EXACTLY the same: "if you have a CCW in your state, you can use it in any other state." EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC!

If you oppose these national recip. bills you should also oppose the FOPA safe passage provision because they are THE SAME structures.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. Remember when the (doomed) RKBA initiative was going around, and a lot of gun owners here opposed it because it said, "gun laws shall be held to strict scrutiny", and the RKBA geniuses didn't want any more "strict scrutiny" in this state? I have the same feeling now of trying to argue with, ok, I'll stop there.

AEC1
07-24-2008, 9:31 PM
100% FOR reciprocity, not a federal CCW system....

mblat
07-24-2008, 9:33 PM
WRONG. That is totally WRONG. I listed SIX national recip bills that are currently in Congress. NOT ONE of them specifies any federally-mandated requirements. NONE. They have dozens of sponsors and they do not, and will not, contain any federally mandated requirements for CCW.

HELLO, WAKE UP! These bills are structured EXACTLY the same way as FOPA's "safe passage" provisions, which allow a person in transit from one state to another be exempt from the gun laws of intervening states he travels through. It does not in any way set standards or standardized gun laws; FOPA's safe passage just says, "if it's legal in the state of origin, and in the state of destination, you can disregard the laws of other states you travel through to get there." This is EXACTLY the same: "if you have a CCW in your state, you can use it in any other state." EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC!

If you oppose these national recip. bills you should also oppose the FOPA safe passage provision because they are THE SAME structures.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. Remember when the (doomed) RKBA initiative was going around, and a lot of gun owners here opposed it because it said, "gun laws shall be held to strict scrutiny", and the RKBA geniuses didn't want any more "strict scrutiny" in this state? I have the same feeling now of trying to argue with, ok, I'll stop there.

I know that none of those bills have such provisions. I also know that they are not going for the vote.
My point is that politics is art of compromise. Such federal requirements are likely to be such compromise if any of those bills come close enough to passing.

CCWFacts
07-24-2008, 9:35 PM
100% FOR reciprocity, not a federal CCW system....

AND THAT'S WHAT ALL OF THESE BILLS ARE. They are reciprocity, they do not IN ANY WAY create a Federal CCW system, any more than the FOPA safe passage provision creates a federal gun control law.

I really hope you all reading this will take a moment to write letters to your reps and senators urging passage of these six bills:


SB 388 - it's doing pretty well, 31 co-sponsors
HR 861 - house counterpart to SB 388, also doing well
HR 5782 - got a lot of sponsors so far
SB 3207 - yet another Senate national recip bill
HR 226 - it was the counterpart to SB 388, but it's now dead
SA 4757 - Vitter amendment to HR 980

CCWFacts
07-24-2008, 9:38 PM
I know that none of those bills have such provisions. I also know that they are not going for the vote.
My point is that politics is art of compromise. Such federal requirements are likely to be such compromise if any of those bills come close enough to passing.

I see what you're saying, but... the fact is, Speaker Pelosi will chew off her own fingers before she allows ANY type of pro-CCW bill to pass through Congress. Doesn't matter what the provisions of it are. The pro-gun people in congress will have to ram it through, probably by either attaching it to some other must-pass bill (Vitter did that with his amendment) or by using a discharge petition. Speaker Pelosi is so opposed that she doesn't have a seat at any possible negotiating table.

Likewise, the NRA and most gun owners would probably oppose any type of Federal CCW system.

The key is to distinguish FOPA safe passage-style reciprocity, which is good, from a Federal CCW system, which is bad. They are really separate things, and the Federal CCW system is (fortunately) not even on the table, and would not have the support of conservatives OR liberals. At least, if we're smart, conservatives will support national reciprocity, and congress is majority pro-gun at this point.

mxpatriot51
07-24-2008, 9:47 PM
All we want and need is a nation wide reciprocity law.

Then we all just go get Utah carry permits and we're good to go in CA.

Doesn't hurt our fellow gun owners' rights in any states the least.

dfletcher
07-24-2008, 11:04 PM
What is the constitutional method (Article 4?) that currently compels one state to recognize a contract executed in another state, or a marriage (speaking of contracts) in another state or a driver's license issued in another state? If that legal vehicle already exists, why not require that method be applied to CCWs? Why create anothe law or set of regulations if the ability already exists? My gut reaction to a federally issued nationwide CCW is that we sacrifice principle for result.

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

jerryg1776
07-24-2008, 11:57 PM
I am all for reciprocity but that may not really do us in CA any good since its not shall issue. My biggest question would be if the reciprocity would be granted to cover non-resident CCW like UT issues and some CA citizens have.

If non-resident CCW holders could apply for one in UT and its effective all over including CA that would be a boon, if no-re CCW's are exempted for some reason then it would be a bust!

I am wanting to get a UT non-res CCW and would love it if reciprocity would allow me to do that as a CA citizen and carry here with a UT permit. That would almost make CA want to be a shall issue state.

Do these bills cover this scenario?

CCWFacts
07-25-2008, 12:17 AM
Do these bills cover this scenario?

No. They won't work that way.

However, it will force CCW issuance reform to happen. The idea that tourists can carry, but we can't in our own state, is not going to last. The FTB won't stand for it...

mymonkeyman
07-25-2008, 12:35 AM
Its not the ONLY way.

Well Pigs Could Fly.

I am all for reciprocity but that may not really do us in CA any good since its not shall issue. My biggest question would be if the reciprocity would be granted to cover non-resident CCW like UT issues and some CA citizens have.

If non-resident CCW holders could apply for one in UT and its effective all over including CA that would be a boon, if no-re CCW's are exempted for some reason then it would be a bust!

I am wanting to get a UT non-res CCW and would love it if reciprocity would allow me to do that as a CA citizen and carry here with a UT permit. That would almost make CA want to be a shall issue state.

Do these bills cover this scenario?

Hr 5782 DOES.

A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

This Clearly includes Non-Resident Permits, from the text, which says "any state" rather than "state of their residence."

The other provision meant for Vermont & Alaska Residents (or No-Permit Required Loaded Open Carry States for Open Carry) elucidates this further:

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

The Bill would not specifically mention residency in the second part but not the first part unless residency was not a requirement of the first part.

People who say this would be unconstitutional are just spouting crap. It fits within 2 powers of Congress: the Commerce Clause which has recently been reaffirmed to be nearly unlimited in scope AND the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which has NEVER had a Congressional statute passed pursuant to it be struck down (LOL DOMA).

Liberty1
07-25-2008, 4:32 AM
We have national carry right now. It's the open carry protected, not created, by the 2nd A. We just need the case law to back it up (coming soon from a court near you;)). Anywhere we can carry openly, we can convice that jurisdiction to issue a CC privilage (Vermont still has it right however).

RomanDad
07-25-2008, 8:09 AM
We have national carry right now. It's the open carry protected, not created, by the 2nd A. We just need the case law to back it up (coming soon from a court near you;)). Anywhere we can carry openly, we can convice that jurisdiction to issue a CC privilage (Vermont still has it right however).

:iagree: