House weighs bill on CCW reciprocity

[abc_123]

Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1XvL8hosO

Wow this would be nice, but I just don't see it happening.

[Pete]

"..................Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

"Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."..................."

A few thoughts on the above statement

1. I thought a person could only get a permit if they were a resident of that locality.

2. What happened to the "presumed innocent" deal?

3. Record? Florida permit? Way more to this story than Ramsey is letting out.

While normally I'd be all for this 1.) What happened to "states rights"? and 2.) I can see lots of potential abuse of this.

[Foggy Bottom]

Originally Posted by Pete

1. I thought a person could only get a permit if they were a resident of that locality.

There already is some reciprocity among some states. I know that a Florida concealed carry permit is considered one of the "best" in the sense that it is recognized by more states than any other and you don't have to be a resident of that state to receive one. Some places, like California, New York, New Jersey, and I think Hawaii, do not recognize any other states' permits.

[Oldrotorhead]

Florida does issue a non-resident CC permit. This allows residents of places like NY carry in Florida. I had a Florida CC when I live in Georgia in addition to the GA CC to increase the number of states where I could carry.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Pete

1. I thought a person could only get a permit if they were a resident of that locality.

Lots of states have non-resident carry permits. I have a wallet-load of permits from various places and will keep them until WI (now with shall-issue) gets its own reciprocity issues worked out with and between the other states.

Everyone should recognize that the Mayor of Philly (which is something called a City of the First Class which I don't fully understand) would be failing in his job description if he didn't make the most of the unilateral actions of a scumbag.

Originally Posted by Pete

1.) What happened to "states rights"? and
2.) I can see lots of potential abuse of this.

Outstanding. I share your concern. Often the visceral reaction is "Oh, yippee - universal carry!"

I will submit that what Big G giveth* ...



* and they always seem to find it necessary to do it with alot of "Notwithstanding the foregoing" - I like American.

[tonyz]

Re both the Philly matter and consideration of national reciprocity. After reading a number of news accounts and comments regarding the Philly issue - I was thinking...

Why was an accused murderer on the streets at all? Might this tragic situation not be so much a Florida problem - as it was a Philadelphia problem?

Is it disingenuous to label (as some pols do) what may have happened in this instance as the “Florida loophole?”

Florida presumably performs a background check and looks for, among other things, a conviction. If the city of Philadelphia had actually convicted this gentleman of a disqualifying crime - then, I suspect, that he would most likely not have been granted a Florida Non-resident license to carry. Innocent until proven guilty remains the acceptable due process standard throughout the US - does it not?

Could the Philadelphia authorities have rightfully/prudently charged and worked for a criminal conviction of this gentleman with a less serious crime - thus, said criminal conviction may have resulted in a rightful rejection by the Florida licensing folks?

As many know, there is often much, much, more to the pursuit of both civil lawsuits and criminal charges - bias, politics, lies, half-truths, personal agendas, political ambitions, little things like lack of evidence, etc.

Cursory research also indicates that the city of Philadelphia has also issued permits to folks that have murdered innocent folks - the fact is, no state or municipal authority can be clairvoyant. But, some actual numbers strongly suggest that duly licensed folks are much less likely to commit a crime with a firearm than the general population.

IIRC, we had another thread in this forum (a while back) which produced powerful numbers from Texas and Florida supporting the idea that duly licensed gun owning folks are - overwhelmingly - law abiding.

Finally, would it be helpful to look at the overarching reciprocity issue in a slightly different light - is the underlying issue really about a federally issued concealed carry license - or is it really about requiring individual states to recognize - a duly issued state concealed carry license - much like they recognize driver licenses.

Perhaps, the states could agree on reasonable minimum acceptable standards regarding background checks and safe handling training. Look at the numbers in TX and FL - duly licensed folks are not very likely to commit a gun crime and when they do they lose that right - as it should be.

Maybe those large states (FL and TX) have reasonable licensing standards - based on their numbers – maybe not – but worthy of consideration. I do know that there has not been the “blood running in the streets” as was projected by the anti-gun crowd when FL became a “shall issue” state. Might the actual experience with “shall issue” in Florida be useful for a national reciprocity discussion? It seems reasonably worthy of consideration.

In reality, NY, NYC, CA, MA, Chicago, Illinois, DC, will always be difficult to please regarding law abiding concealed carry and, yet, they still suffer substantial gun violence.

I’d sure like to lawfully carry when forced to travel to those jurisdictions.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Is it disingenuous to label (as some pols do) what may have happened in this instance as the “Florida loophole?”

Don't forget the gun show "loophole", thanks to Bloomy. While there may be some legitimate issues with the regulation of such sales, he has very little legal standing on which to get involved, but did anyhow. So much for states rights...

Originally Posted by tonyz

Innocent until proven guilty remains the acceptable due process standard throughout the US - does it not?

Guilty until proven guilty, with the MSM as Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Originally Posted by tonyz

Finally, would it be helpful to look at the overarching reciprocity issue in a slightly different light - is the underlying issue really about a federally issued concealed carry license - or is it really about requiring individual states to recognize - a duly issued state concealed carry license - much like they recognize driver licenses.

Spot on. As pointed out by many others on this forum and elsewhere, motor vehicle fatalities surpass firearms fatalities(http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html), and the age old argument which defies Lib logic "Maybe we should ban cars too". Personally, I'd start with the Prius's

[Cake_14N]

Originally Posted by tonyz

would it be helpful to look at the overarching reciprocity issue in a slightly different light - is the underlying issue really about a federally issued concealed carry license - or is it really about requiring individual states to recognize - a duly issued state concealed carry license - much like they recognize driver licenses.

Perhaps, the states could agree on reasonable minimum acceptable standards regarding background checks and safe handling training. Look at the numbers in TX and FL - duly licensed folks are not very likely to commit a gun crime and when they do they lose that right - as it should be.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. One issue in my research is the different levels of training required by each state. If there were an overall federal standard, it would simplify things a great deal. If I remember correctly, there are states that require zero training, just a payment to the local sheriff while others require hours and hours of classroom training as well as live-fire demonstration of skills. We would need to adopt a resonable set of standards acceptable by all states.

Plus, a federal permit would allow carry on federal ( Indian ) lands. There are a number of tribal areas here in New Mexico where we are required to get permission from Tribal Leadership to carry.

[JJ_BPK]

1.) What happened to "states rights"?

I am not a 2L,, but the 2nd Amendment has a play in this sand box. I believe it trumps States Rights when it comes to this Individual Freedom.

Yes there are areas were States Rights come into play. but they are limited to local areas of law, not specifically covered by Federal Statute.


Anyway,, My $00.0002

[Foggy Bottom]

Originally Posted by Cake_14N

If there were an overall federal standard, it would simplify things a great deal.

Even under the Law Enforcement Safety Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act) there is no federal standard. Retired LEOs go to either their former federal agency or the local police/sheriff and qualify on that standard and that allows them to carry throughout the nation according to a local PD standard.

[bubba]

"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." Since the 2A is found in pretty much the same place as the above text...... Just saying....... If memory serves, isn't there something in that crazy document that says the Several States have to abide by the laws of other's as in drivers licenses, marriage licenses, etc........ On the "different standards" issue, what if any standard exists for driver's licenses other than age requirements? And by the way, don't cars kill WAY more people every year than guns?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Finally, would it be helpful to look at the overarching reciprocity issue in a slightly different light - is the underlying issue really about a federally issued concealed carry license - or is it really about requiring individual states to recognize - a duly issued state concealed carry license - much like they recognize driver licenses.

Your theory is quite sound and such a goal laudable. The fact is states will choose to play this game, at varying levels, for their own reasons. IF one could trust that full recognition of a document, state-to-state, was the end-game... I remain a bit jaundiced as to motive, maybe unjustly so in this case, but not without precedent.

What happens in practice is that states continue to push-back because of their view that they understand their own crime problems better than others and hold a higher moral ground than another (even if their crime problems or other agenda are of their own making). The respective AGs then play the "my sandbox is cleaner than your sandbox" routine. I actually think that, quietly or not, the states themselves will pushback on this measure stronger than any original-intent aficionados.

I hope the intent is not state-to-state, one paper, but state-to-state, any paper. (Although my pref has always been Vassiliy's "state-to-state, no papers.") The last carry-bill version (passed bi-partisan/GuvAsshat veto) before the recent passage of our shall-issue bill a handful of us wrote the "reciprocity" statement into it - it was one sentence.* Never flew - politicians do not like to lay all cards on the table now, play the hand, and move on. They always want something in the hole for later.



* "A permit issued by another state shall be regarded and recognized the same as a permit issued under this Section." too simple I guess

[Paragrouper]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I hope the intent is not state-to-state, one paper, but state-to-state, any paper.

You can find the proposed text here

As currently proposed (a larger caveat does not exist)

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Badger52

What happens in practice is that states continue to push-back because of their view that they understand their own crime problems better than others and hold a higher moral ground than another (even if their crime problems or other agenda are of their own making). The respective AGs then play the "my sandbox is cleaner than your sandbox" routine.

The jurisdictions that do the above and the politicians that support such notions are universally full of bovine feces.

[The Reaper]

Do we require separate driver's licenses to operate a motor vehicle in other states?

The tests and standards are not exactly the same are they? Does that affect your ability to operate your vehicle safely?

Should we ban cars because people break laws, commit crimes, and kill people while driving them?

Was Mr. Hill only able to carry in Philly because of his Florida CCW, or could he not have just shoved his weapon in the waistband of his trousers and carried illegally, since he was going to murder someone. Is that not also illegal? Was the permit a significant factor in this crime? It doesn't sound like it.

A City of the First Class is a Penn term referring to a major city.

"...the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights. Is this unclear?

TR