By a vote of 272 to 154, the House of Representatives today approved H.R. 822, which would allow anybody licensed to carry concealed weapons in their home state to carry them concealed into other states as well, regardless of that state’s laws. The vote was largely on partisan lines, though 44 Democrats voted for, and 7 Republicans against.
The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
[September 13, 2011] Congress to Decide: If you have a concealed carry permit, should you be allowed to carry that gun into other states when you travel?
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will begin hearings on a proposed law in which both sides stand in support of “rights”: Proponents of the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act want states to be required to honor “carry” permits issued in other states — so if you have the right to carry a concealed weapon in Texas, where those permits are about as easy to get as dog licenses, you can carry your weapon into Illinois, which doesn’t issue these permits at all.
Opponents are arguing for the right of states to control who can carry concealed weapons. Clearly, the end result (and clear intention) of this act would be to lower the national requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit to that of the most lenient state.
So on one hand this could result in a monumental shift in the right to bear arms, effectively eliminating gun control throughout the United States. On the other hand, this is all merely an exercise in political showmanship with the majority Republicans of the House voting for the bill to bolster their right-wing bona fides — since the perception, during the current election cycle, is that Republican candidates have to appeal to the party’s most conservative voters — knowing full well that the Democrat-controlled Senate will pass this about a week and a half after Hell freezes over.
This is just another example of “we’re in favor of states’ rights… unless the states do something we don’t like, in which case we want the federal government to smash ‘em flat”.
I’m a little unclear how Congress can do this without amending the Constitution. It’s a pretty brazen invasion of the states’ police power.
This one does seem a bit odd, as both “Gun Rights” and “States’ Rights” are supposedly right-wing issues.
Even though I consider myself pretty right-leaning, I think this is insanity and a waste of time.
Definitely ‘Nay’.
OH great — we can have reciprocal recognition to carry a concealed weapons, but not same sex marriages … cause same sex marriages are more ….dangerous ???????
And … um jobs ? Boehner ??? Boehner ??? Boehner ???
Of course to be fair, James, the Democrats are saying “we’re in favor of federal dominance over states’ rights unless the states are doing something we like.”
Actually, Nicole, I’d already written “the same way states recognize marriages performed in other states” — then I realized that I’d need to add a disclaimer for same-sex marriages, and then I realized I’d have to write “the same way states recognize marriages performed in other states between the period of time between the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws and the advent of same-sex marriages,” at which point I just deleted the entire passage.
States are required to give “full faith and credit” to the official acts of other states. This is where the refusal of some states to recognize gay marriages legally performed in states that allows them runs into potential constitutional trouble. (And barring an amendment defining marriage, is probably why gay marriage will eventually become legal (though probably not popular) in all 50 states. It also means that people can travel to the state that is most permissive in issuing marriage licenses, obtain a license, get married, and return home married, overcoming such home-state impediments as waiting periods, blood tests, or high license fees. The same dynamic applies to divorces (Nevada being famous for both) and things like chartering a corporation (where Delaware had the most permissive rules… so most large publicly-traded corporations are Delaware corporations.
Now consider a carry permit. A carry permit represents the state’s judgment that the permit-holder is responsible enough to carry a weapon within the legal restrictions set up by the state. A state may issue a carry permit to residents of the state, or to residents of other states, but it is only valid in the state that issued it. Right now, each state may determine the level of responsibility it wants to require before issuing a carry permit. Each state does respect the official acts of the other states with regard to carry permits. If person A lives in Illinois but travels to Texas and obtains a carry permit in Texas, Illinois respects that official act… it takes no action to prevent the person with a Texas carry permit from carrying in Texas, which is what a Texas carry permit, well, permits. Texas doesn’t have the authority to issue a permit that allows a person to carry in another state, not even for its own citizens.
Why the difference? How come Nevada is allowed to decide if an Ohio couple is married or not after their Vegas vacation but Texas can’t decide whether a Texan can pack in Buffalo, Atlanta, or San Francisco? This is an interesting dichotomy which probably doesn’t have a single clear answer.
The difference is because you can’t stop being married based on which state you’re crossing into — but you /can/ stop carrying a concealed weapon.
Ask the gay folks if they can stop being married by crossing into a different state. OK, THEY’LL say no, but their lawyer will say yes.
The interesting cases are the people who obtain a legal gay marriage in a state where such are available, then move to a state where gay marriages are not legal, then decide they don’t want to be married to each other any more.
Here’s one for you to demonstrate the consistency of the legal system:
Why is it illegal in my state to drive a car without wearing seat belts, but legal to drive a motorcycle without wearing a helmet?
Because wearing a seatbelt doesn’t make you more likely to get in an accident, so there’s no tradeoff between raising your chance of surviving an accident and reducing your chance of getting in one.
Also, people in car accidents usually survive them but seatbelts reduce the frequency and severity of injuries. People in motorcycle accidents usually die if not wearing helmets. Since the argument in both cases revolves around the “unsafe” people becoming an unfair burden on the medical system, the helmet-less are actually -cheaper-, not more expensive.
I’m all for responsible people carrying guns, but no gun-owner should consider it a hardship to know and follow the laws of other states.
This is a strange comment, coming from someone whose post name is also that of a ficitious cop who shoots people without reservation.
What do you mean, “without reservation”. He goes through that whole “do you feel lucky” speech to allow the suspect to surrender. The ones who do surrender don’t get shot.
Only people people who needed shooting. Silly comment from someone who’d post name is a Russian meat-filled dumpling.
So if people with a permit in one state (let’s call such a state a “gun state”) in a non-gun state, should it then be the case that people who are from non-gun states are still disallowed to carry in gun states?
No? Huh. These people have a strange idea of “reciprocal”, then.
Sorry, my previous post should read “So if people with a permit in one state … carry in a non-gun state …”
… I sure am glad I moved to Canada …
I don’t think anyone has actually ever been for or against state’s rights; it’s too abstract for almost anyone to care about except in how it helps or hurts their causes.
I’m still pretty sure this is unconstitutional.
Considering the “well-regulated militia” clause that begins the Second Amendment, which is all that protects the right to bear arms in the U.S.A., shouldn’t concealed weapons be illegal? A citizen carrying a gun is part of our “well-regulated militia”, ready to be called upon by the rest of us to protect our liberty, our society, and our government. We need to know who these people are and how to find them at every moment. Anyone who wants a gun needs to acquire a license & registration, provide all of his/her contact information to the entire public, and carry said gun openly and proudly, ready to protect us from foreign invasion.