Concealed Carry Over State Lines Coming?
The Washington Post reports a glimmer of hope for 2nd amendment supporters this week, as several moderate Democrats may be lining up with the GOP to back a provision which would ensure the rights of gun owners in states with permissive laws when they travel across state lines.
Senate Democrats are scrambling to defeat a Republican-backed provision that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines, overriding the stricter laws of many jurisdictions and giving preference to states with looser standards.
Critics, including police organizations, big-city mayors and gun-victims groups, decried the legislation as creating “a new national lowest common denominator” for ownership of firearms. But twice this year, Republicans have succeeded in rolling back restrictions on guns with substantial backing from moderate Democrats, many newly elected from Western states with strong Second Amendment traditions.
I will confess that, even as an avid supporter of gun rights, this approach gives me pause. It’s one of those cases of two perfectly valid arguments running head to head against each other. The individual states need to be able to determine their own affairs as much as possible, but the Doctrine of Incorporation has been frustrating us for so long that it can drive one to desperation. Second amendment rights most certainly should, in my never very humble opinion, be considered fundamental rights which all states have to recognize. From that perspective, allowing owners to have their rights “travel with them” while on the road is an attractive idea.
On the other hand, the law is the law, and just because you can carry your weapon into a bar in Texas doesn’t mean that you should be able to drive to New York City, sit down in a bar and order a beer with your 9mm in your pocket. I realize this proposal is more for the person who is on the road and in the process of traveling, but questions such as that are inevitable and come along as part of the discussion.
The political ramifications may be far more interesting, though. A number of junior Democrats, as noted in the article, are getting increasingly nervous as 2010 approaches and the popularity of both the Obama administration and the Democratic majority’s domestic agenda continue to slide. In western states, voting against something like this could be the final straw on the camel’s back which sends their seat back to the Republicans.
I believe I would like to see such a proposal put in place, challenged in the courts and sent up the line for a final resolution. It might clarify things a bit more for us in the future.
19 Responses to “Concealed Carry Over State Lines Coming?”
It seems like the classic “States rights when we want them” trick to me. The second amendment isn't being violated in states without concealed carry laws (which are traditionally created ballot initiatives) so the will of the residents of that state should be respected. It doesn't actually seem like a second amend. issue, concealed carry is a separate issue from the right to keep and bear arms (but I'm not an NRA lawyer so what do I know.)
I know that this will never happen, but, I might consider supporting this proposal IF it was accompanied by a repeal of the Tikhrt Amendment that makes it illegal for information about crime scene bullets to be shared with law enforcement officials in other states.
I'd be up for that trade. That amendment makes no sense to me either.
Having qualified for cc here in CO, already can cross into 17 states with a single registered firearm by having license in this state only… without qualifying in those other states. Laws in those states vary re transport of firearm, at least two states require when in transport in vehicle, firearm must be broken down or away from interior of vehicle in trunk … which makes little sense. One can cc it upright on person, but not in vehicle there.
Not only ought any law be withdrawn that prevents law enforcement to share info with other jurisdictions, it would be immensely helpful if federal law enforcement, state, and local re homeland security would not be so proprietary with their info re all districts. The lack of flow of critical info is at many levels. OT, but beginning with Homeland Security battening down qualified access to DMV records and much more, cuts not just a piece of pie for HS, but the whole pie.
The Second Ammendment DOESN'T say, “…. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed UNTIL YOU GO TO ANOTHER STATE.
It also doesn't say, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed AS LONG AS YOU STAY AT HOME.”
I don't need to carry a gun in Zortman, Montana or Faith, South Dakota. I need a gun in Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C. because that's where the criminals are.
While in the service (NAVY) I applied for a Carry Permits for each State I traveled through (Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut). Each state had its own requirement with Connecticut being the hardest to obtain. After doing some groundwork on my part each State approved my requests. SO WHAT THE BIG DEAL.
That's what I wondered too geMAN. In terms of personal reasons for my cc it would be nice to be able to travel to more than the 17 states that have reciprocity with Colo… I was reading nra mag that came recently, and need to go back and see what the reasoning is… although traditionally the nra hierarchy would seem to like to get as much 'open' legistation connected to firearms as they can get, ever, anywhere.
dr.e
For the record you can not carry in a bar in Texas. In actuality you cannot carry in any establishment that makes more than 51% of it's income from sales of alcohol.
I agree that it is a good law that you cannot carry in a bar, because people could get out of hand, just bar fights.
BUT I have a carry permit in PA. I am perfectly legal here in PA to protect myself and my family from criminals. My permit is good in West Virginia too, but not Ohio. We live in PA, but are close to Ohio.
A good friend of mine got a call from his girlfriend that her car broke down (flat tire) in Ohio while coming home from work. He went to help her out, we there working on the car a little bit and the state patrol showed up. He was getting tools out of his truck and opened the door and left it open to go back to the tire, did not even think of it, cop walked over looking around and saw that he had a hand gun in the door, as he always does and is legal with his PA permit.
The cop asked him if he had a permit in Ohio, he said no, the cop all of a sudden held him at gunpoint with his hands on the ground and and called for backup, meanwhile it was never even out or anything, and was changing a tire when the cop spotted it, the guy never had anything more than a speeding ticket in his life and ended up spending the weekend in jail until he had a hearing. He was charged with 3 Felonies, and ended up being dropped to a $500 fine because he had never done anything wrong.
He was perfectly legal in PA, not 2 miles over the Ohio Border. The guy did nothing, except have it in a different state.
They need to have this law in place, it would be much better if things were country wide, instead of different from state to state.
And that cop is an Asshole, I hope he loses his job. Holding a gun to someones back for NOTHING, he was 50 feet away from any gun and changing a tire when that cop even noticed it in the door.
Ok guys
You ready to support this law if the couple carrying the gun are same sex partners legally married in their home state? With their right to carry, do they also get visitation rights in the hospital when one of them is shot?
The 2nd Amendment part of this proposed law is a red herring to the question before us. Should states laws be honored in other states?
“You ready to support this law if the couple carrying the gun are same sex partners legally married in their home state? With their right to carry, do they also get visitation rights in the hospital when one of them is shot?“
Yes and yes. I've never had a problem with either of those.
I was thinking of the issue as parallel to alcohol laws. In general, people have a right to drink alcohol, but no one seems to get super upset if one county is dry, another wet; one allows no open containers in a car, another does in the back; etc. As long as all sets of laws meet the constitutional requirements, shouldn't districts have rights to set their own limits?
“On the other hand, the law is the law, and just because you can carry your weapon into a bar in Texas doesn’t mean that you should be able to drive to New York City, sit down in a bar and order a beer with your 9mm in your pocket.. . . . .”
Ridiculous argument. The bill states that you would have to abide by the special restrictions of the state's concealed carry laws. This is true for the 40 some states that already have reciprocity, and no problems have been reported. The problem is that in New York, one may not even possess a legally owned handgun if not a resident, not even locked up and unloaded unless one has a New York State pistol permit, and New York will NOT issue a permit to even possess a secured gun unless one is a resident. AND it's a felony! So the the second amendment is meaningless in the state of New York, and that's got to end. And it will, sooner rather than later.
My Drivers License is recip. everywhere, isn't it? Why can't my right to protect myself be the same? I live in the UNITED States, not the United STATE.
Its like a LEO pulling you over then asking; “What are you doing here?” How about an answer like this; “Whatever the hell I want. Inside the continental United States, border to border, I AM HOME, AND I CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE. AMERICAN.”
All these comments (including my own as developed here) indicate once again that “states rights” is almost always used when people can't get what they want from the federal government. But if they think they can, then states rights go right out the window.
Jazz
” Yes and yes. I've never had a problem with either of those.”
Great
Alaska allows possession of pot for personal use. Why not abide by these enlightened statutes?
NY's abortion laws are much more lax than Kansas or Missouri, I take it you support NY's more reasonable laws for all states too.
If one state's laws are to be honored in other states, you have to admit that eventually one of your favorite cows will be gored. State laws stop at their borders or States rights are merely rhetoric to push a personal agenda nationally.
Actually, I've long felt that pot should have already been legalized and taxed. The abortion question gets a bit more tricky, given the difficulties involved in packing up an entire abortion clinic and carrying it across state lines. But obviously, I take your point. I believe I pointed out the difficulties with this in the original post. I really don't want to impinge on the rights of the individual states when they are exerting rights which are reserved to the states. And as I also noted in the article, that's probably the crux of the question I'm seeking to solve. In the recent DC gun ban case, SCOTUS actually did rule that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, but they deftly danced around the question of Incorporation. I guess the reason I'd like to see this particular case passed, challenged and taken up the line for just that reason. It would be a better forum for the Incorporation Doctrine to be re-examined.
For me, it's kind of a 2nd amendment vs. 10th amendment thing. If it truly is not a “fundamental right” which is incorporated to the states, then it goes to the 10th amendment and the laws need to stop at the state borders. But when I look at the Bill of Rights, that's never made much sense to me. The combination of the 9th and 10th amendments seem, in layman's terms, to say, “We just laid out eight different sets of rights for everyone. That doesn't mean that you don't have other rights, but if they are not listed here, then they are left to the jurisdiction of the states.” It seems like a fairly simple idea, but the Incorporation Doctrine effectively said, “Well, yes, but not all of those eight are actually rights for everyone.” That just doesn't compute for me. The right to keep and bear arms was one of the ones they laid out before nine and ten. In fact, it made it on to the list at number two!
Anyway, I guess I would just like a modern court to take another crack at that and try to define for us exactly what the earlier courts meant, or scrap the concept entirely.
That's a rather interesting reading of the 9th and 10th amendments, Jazz. If something is left to the jurisdiction of the states then it's not really a “right” at all.
There wasnt this assinine piece of legislation called the AWB 1994-2004 that overrode states laws and rights was there? Correct me if I am wrong, but such legislation happens all the time doesnt it?
As for the incorporation doctrine, the federal government is made up of individual US citizens. The preamble of the US Constitution or any state constitution states “We the people” and in no declarative fashion identifies or initiates a seperate class of citizenry such as Federal government employees are different citizens, inherently embued with superior rights. Therefore the statement that the US Constitution applies only to the Federal government by inherent logic, applies to individual citizens as well as the Federal government is truly made up of “We the people”, prove otherwise. That is the biggest weakness in the 7TH circuit courts ruling that the second emendment is not incorporated.
A ruling that has a ceriotari filed, (the 7th courts ruling on incorporation does) requires a review by the US Supreme Court as any differentiating rulings by the lower appeals (9th says yes, 7th says no) courts are reviewed. Expect that review to occur before June 2010 and based on current law, rulings, expect the ruling that the second amendment is not incorporated to be overturned.
Incorporation in fact was the off shoot of the Jim Crow laws in the south before and after the civil war, read up on this bigoted rascist logic that has no place in our law or political system.
As for states rights being acceptable as long as they fall within constitutional limits, please explain how the outright and defacto gun bans in Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. meet constitutional requirements? Especially as the rights of the law abiding are most certainly infringed in those gleaming beacons of elitest socialistic paradise by far exceeding the current Federal gun laws that exist as referenced and related to the second amendment are they not?
The US Constitution is a control of government both federal and state and applies equally to both, or not at all!