The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity dance
The Republicans have submitted a bill that would allow US citizens to carry weapons concealed in all 50 states if they had complied with the laws within their own state, according to The Hill. Once again. My Senator, Joe Manchin, submitted the same bill before the 2012 election – it went no where. After the election, Manchin tried to help Chuck Schumer and the rest when they tried to do a backdoor federal firearm registration bill. So, I’m not real hopeful for this bill, which will probably be vetoed at the White House if it gets through the legislative process;
Gun control groups say the bill poses a significant danger for society at a time when lawmakers should be strengthening background checks to address recent shootings.
“Federally imposed concealed carry laws interfere with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told The Hill.
In that case, each state should test drivers from out of state who try to pass through. Same concept. If my state has determined that I’m a law abiding member of society, who is, Maryland, for example to say I’m not. I live ten miles from Maryland, so I guess as soon as I pass over the Potomac, I get the urge to shoot up some public assemblage of poor innocent Marylanders caught unaware.
By the way, Maryland also has pretty stringent driver testing standards compared to West Virginia, too. You have to wait nine months after you pass the written test to take the driving test and you have to take a driver’s training course and show proof of your training. In West Virginia, you take your written test and then wait a month to take the driving test. So, how does Maryland get away with letting me drive in their state since I didn’t meet their driving test standard.
I don’t carry a weapon in Maryland, by the way, because they’d punish me as if I were a real criminal if they caught me. Since I don’t go anywhere without a firearm, I don’t go to Maryland and spend my money, either. I can carry a weapon in Virginia, so I drive 50 miles to do my shopping rather than the more convenient ten miles. Maryland’s loss. Oh, yeah gas is about $.25/gallon cheaper in Virginia, too.
Category: Guns
“Gun control groups say the bill poses a significant danger for society…”
Yes, we know. Blood will run in the streets. There will be Dodge City shootouts on Saturday nights. We see these or variants from the anti-gun nuts every time a pro-gun bill is even written let alone passed. And every time the anti-gun nuts have been proven wrong.
“Federally imposed concealed carry laws interfere with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told The Hill.
That is a flawed argument, since a person has to pass a background check in order to get a CCW permit to begin with, it would have no bearing on determining who is too dangerous to be armed. It is a matter of reciprocity across all 50 states and US territories. Just like a driver’s license. As for Feinblatt; he would consider all private citizens to be too dangerous to be armed, because he’s a commie.
Let me put this out there. In the state of Indiana I can do the process online. I support CC have one myself. HOWEVER, it disturbs me that people can carry a weapon in public they know very little if anything about. They do not understand it capabilities and are not required to prove they could hit the broad side of a barn at 20 feet. No shooter safety course is required or even a 5 minute class on what to do if you are stopped or approached by a police officer. Florida does require a safety course or military experience.
One other point. Having a DD214 should not qualify anyone as having training with firearms. Unless they have a qualification with a handgun on it, it is meaningless for this purpose.
Sir,
My DD214 does not reflect any short arm qual’s, though I qualified w/M1911A1 when I was a 106RR gunner, 90 gunner (the stove pipe), an M60 gunner (for my EIB) and when I was a 91B.
I think they only reflect the qual at time of discharge, at least in my case.
Florida only requires a DD214, it does not matter what is on it as long as it is honorable. In your case a 214 should not be used as proof of firearms training if nothing appears on it. JMHO
@ DAVE HARDIN, Et Alii:
When I was receiving On the Job Training (i.e., “OJT”) in Law Enforcement from the 142d Military Police Company at Yong San Army Garrison in Seoul, Republic of Korea, as part of the Project Transition program, I qualified with the Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol, and it doesn’t appear on my DD-214.
In addition to the M-14 and M-16 rifles, I also qualified with the twelve gauge pump shotgun, and on occasion, fired the M-79 grenade launcher, M-60 machine gun, M-72 Light Anti-tank Weapon (i.e., “LAW”) and the Browning M-2 .50 caliber machine gun, plus receiving the required training in bayonet fighting, hand-to-hand fighting, “Quick Kill”, fragmentation hand grenade, claymore mine, and off-duty training in Tae Kwon Do Oh Do Kwan (i.e., “Free Form”), and NONE of those things appear on my DD-214, except for one generic listing of an unspecified “Expert Rifleman Badge”.
If any of it is in my 201 File, or my Form 20, I’ve not seen it.
Mox nix.
Anyway, who cares?
Carrying a concealed weapon is one of our UNALIENABLE rights, which we’re born with, and which our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States allegedly guarantees that NO government may infringe upon.
So, why do we need a license or permit?
Why do we need to pay a fee for a right we already have?
If a state is going to require proof of some experience with a firearm be it right or wrong a DD214 is not equivalent to an NRA course. That was the point I was trying to make. If you have all that training and it does not appear on your DD214 how could the state tell the difference between you and someone that never qualified with anything just by their 214? They can not, and should not accept it as the equivalent.
Our rights have limits. You can not scream FIRE in a crowded theater as part of free speech. The left seems to think getting rid of hand guns will reduce crime, we all know that is not true. You may not drive while drunk. You do not have a right to endanger others while exercising your rights.
Pulling a trigger is not something to be taken lightly. On your property or in public. The bullet does not know what your intention was.
There are many examples I can think of but I will use not being able to see 25 feet as an example. Should the right to pull a trigger in public include those who can not see a target or hit one? I dont know if that is the correct position to take.
Dave, I happen to believe the 2nd amendment is my CC card. Here in MN there is classroom time, not sure how much is safety, and you do have to fire at a silhouette target proficiently.
OC
The DD 214 establishes that the holder has undergone training in how to safely handle a weapon and nothing more. It does not establish that the owner of a particular firearm is proficient in its use. It couldn’t, of course.
It can establish proficiency with a weapon. For example, I have 6 expert weapons awards on my 214. I am not familiar enough with Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard weapons training in general to say a 214 means they qualified with a weapon at all. I dont think so in most cases. I doubt any handgun training is done in basic, someone correct me if that is wrong.
What I meant to covey but was unclear about was that my qualifying with an M16A1, for instance, doesn’t mean I am proficient in the use of a handgun for purposes of a civilian firearm permit. My point was meant to be that reliance on the DD214 by the licensing authority is solely to establish that the applicant has been trained in firearm safety, not proficiency in the use of the firearm to be carried by the applicant.
Rights are not subject to government test.
We do not test people for reading skill before buying books, nor writing skills before posting online. (I would fail the spelling test.)
The “not qualified” is highly abused, and used to deny our 2A rights. Qualified by whom? To what standard?
I would not easily agree to anything beyond “this is a gun, this is the end that hurts, this is the bang switch”, and Cooper’s four rules. Sure, a class on the state’s always and simple test might be a compromise not subject to buggery-by-rule.
The states with no requirements at all have no significant problem, so why imagine ones in other states? The states with minimal requirements are certainly plenty safe, so again, why dress it up with the word “safety” or “qualification” when what you really mean is “I get to decide if you have a right or not” or “I get to decide if you get to exercise that right”.
They required literacy tests and such to vote, a while back. I, for one, think Jim Crow is a lousy way to run a place. And that is what “gun control” is, leftover Jim Crow.
Bloomberg just admitted as much, recently, with a slip of the truth.
So, no, I really prefer constitutional carry. (No permit at all) Just prohibit evil behavior, and punish those who do so.
Good points. I would probably fail a spelling test as well. My spelling however does not have the direct potential to kill anyone.
I do worry about the abuse of what’Qualified’ would turn out to be as well. We do have a right to carry a firearm anywhere we want. There are restrictions to that freedom. I am torn between public safety and individual freedoms.
I guess my problem stems from me being around civilians with firearms. By in large they have no concept of how deadly the weapon they own is. I shoot at various ranges and see their inability to hit paper at 25 feet. Not all of course. Do I want someone who can not hit paper pulling a firearm in public to stop a crime? I guess that depends on the situation.
I dont want granny spraying a store with ammo because she is scared. I dont want criminals to think they will not be stopped either.
Will a class on situation awareness help? Maybe not, but I dont see how it will hurt. Will teaching the capabilities of their particular weapon help? Maybe, again I see no harm.
If I can not see 25 feet away, what right do I have to be shooting at anything? There has to be some middle ground.
I often do the following thing. I ask people how far away their 9mm will kill someone. The answer is usually 100-200 yards. I then demonstrate that I can hit a target 400 yards away about 50% of the time. The round will go through 3/4 inch plywood with no problem. Most people do not realize the trigger they just pulled can kill a person that far away.
I dont know, I am split on the issue.
should read ‘do not have a right to carry a firearm anywhere we want’
“My spelling however does not have the direct potential to kill anyone.”
Tell that to a doctor, lawyer or engineer.
“I guess my problem stems from me being around civilians with firearms.”
Sorry, Constitutional Rights are for EVERYONE. That’s what we served for. I find your dislike of that VERY disturbing.
“I dont want granny spraying a store with ammo because she is scared.”
Various levels of carry and testing have been around for quite a while now. The evidence seems to indicate that state-required training doesn’t seem to have any discernable affect on safety. If Grandma was going to “spray a store”, it would have happened by now. Show that there’s been a problem with it, and your argument has a point. Otherwise…. it doesn’t.
“… I am split on the issue.”
I’m not. In any debate between hypothetical ‘public safety’ and very real Liberty and Freedom, I’ll default to L & F EVERY time. Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, facts and stats, why I shouldn’t.
Now, May I please see proof of your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment training?
Great Post. You are right about hypothetical public safety and real Liberty, well said.
I can not demonstrate with evidence, facts and stats why you shouldnt. Again, well said. I will do some research on that issue. You may very well turn out to be right.
I am split on the issue and posts like yours help move me off the fence. Semper Fi.
Insofar as doctors, lawyers, and engineer’s are concerned all of them are required to have a license. they must prove they are qualified. Great post though, it keeps me thinking.
“What if…” “What if someone goes berserk?” What does that have to do with my rights? You mean we only have the rights that can be handled by the least sane? That is exactly no rights at all. And please do not tell me that speech cannot kill. Sure it can. That is why we punish those who incite riots. (And note how many mass murdering ‘leaders’ never once killed by their own hands.) Or, if you want the empirical evidence: Several large areas in the USA have no significant limits on the carry of arms by any law abiding people. If your concern about “berserk” was statistically valid, and laws were of any use in deterring ‘berserk’, we would have quite a mess on a regular basis. The anti’s have been promising blood in the streets for decades, and where is it? A free society is not based on what is safe for crazy people. If so, there would be no cars, knives, household cleaners, movement about the streets, etc. My right to bear arms is not limited to what does not induce imaginary fears. Freedom is not the absence of risk. The lack of freedom, however, does not take away risk. Case in point: crazy people are not deterred in the slightest by no-carry or no-gun laws. (Or are they deterred by no-carry or no-gun laws, but not no-murder laws?)How am I safer disarmed from the crazy people you fear? (For such laws tend to be used to stop the lawful from carrying, by those who simply do not want it.) If random crazy people are a serious risk, then that is all the more reason for the rest of us to be armed at all times, everywhere. It is the only thing that could possibly stop widespread risk of crazy rampages. Did you realize that you are in effect saying “The provably high risk of lots of people getting robbed, raped, and/or killed is highly preferable to the tiny risk I might get caught up in a provably rare ‘crazy shooter’ situation.”? Because your “screening” for crazy… Read more »
There is something that is much more of a danger and you don’t even need an ID to do it.
Voting.
Statistically ccw owners are in such A non danger and participate inI criminal activity far less than a wage citizen Joe that trying to portray them as dangerous is one of the dumbest arguments of all time.
The opposition to national reciprocity and the call for additional legal hoops in order to own guns is driven by the ludicrous notion that criminals obey the law.
Is this the same bunch opposing this that want court mandated Ghey Marriage in all fifty states? Why is that not also a states rights issue?
^^Like^^
Ya beat me to it!
Yes-from a Federalism perspective I have no objections to various states having different requirements for a variety of issues (I think that reflects the Founder’s intent that the states be “laboratories of liberty”). Still, the USSC has said that we have the right to keep and bear arms and I see no reason that individuals should fear trial and prison for exercising that right as they transition between states.
“Federally imposed concealed carry laws interfere with states’ fundamental right to determine who is too dangerous to carry hidden, loaded guns in public,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told The Hill.
Isn’t it amazing how liberals are ready to stomp states rights out of existence with, for example, unfunded school mandates and federal environmental controls for all sorts of bull shit they think are for the “good of the little people who we need to think for” until it comes to this. Then they’re all about states rights. Hypocrites.
Exactly. Dems supporting States Rights, now ain’t that a hoot.
Something keeps popping into my head about how federal laws trump state ones.
And if you are in fact going to have 50-state reciprocity, make sure the standards and training are uniform.
Other than that, this is a bad idea how, exactly?
Sparky: The thing that bothers me about a “national standard” for CCW is that many states have pretty restrictive requirements and my fear is that if there were a “national standard” it would be “dumbed down” to equal those of the most restrictive states.
Which means those of us who live in the less restrictive states (CO has one of the least restrictive CCW laws in the nation) would suffer.
Federal law coexists with state law except in two circumstances. The first is when a law runs counter to a provision of the US Constitution. The second is when Congress expressly pre-empts state law and does so constitutionally. The usual method by which Congress does this is through the interstate commerce clause. Of course, there is one great exception to that in recent history: that cockamamie Obamacare decision of that Idiot SOB John Roberts and the four commies on the court. Great. Now I’m pissed recalling that idiot’s idiotic decision. A tax my ass. Where was I? Oh yeah. Good night. Dammit.
(Heavy sigh.) I’ve said this before, and will continue to say it until the idiots on the left side of the fence finally understand plain Engliah, to wit:
Criminals with guns do not get their guns at gun shops. They do not have licenses to carry or own guns. They do not pass background checks because they are criminals. In many states they are getting their guns, of all kinds including semi-automatics, from drug cartel reps.
If any of those morons ever get those facts into their crania, someone please alert the media. And please explain to me, in small words of one syllable or less, exactly what those idiots are afraid of, because they’ll hide behind someone with a gun if they’re attacked.
OK. Challenge accepted!
They
fear
You
Will
Not
Fear
Them
Nor
Do
As
You
Are
Told
That is about it. (And no disrespect intended to you by answering that way)
You won’t obey your betters, if you do not have to do so, and arms tend to enable that oh so very American. “No”.
Some just fear that you will go berserk and kill them, as they imagine they would do if empowered.
Sauce anybody.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/11/pf/same-sex-military/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us/texas-and-5-other-states-resist-processing-benefits-for-gay-couples.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I really hope this law passes. I go home to Illinois to visit my family and friends and I am stuck carrying an collapsible baton even though I have my CWP for Washington, but in Illinois I can only have it in my car then once I leave my car if its still on me it becomes a felony. Then when I cross the bride into Oregon I have to put it in a box and lock it so it’s not a felony.
*bridge
I have a Utah Nonresident CFP because I live in Maryland. I got the CFP because I don’t carry large sums of cash and I’m not an LEO or guard. You see, here in MD the Second Amendment kind of applies and the quaint notion of “self defense” is not a “Good and Substantial Reason” to be permitted to possess a handgun. On the other hand, Utah simply requires a clean record, and their CFP is recognized in more than 30 states.
If this bill passes I’m back to carrying a club with a nail in the end when I cross the border from MD into America.
Thank you so much…
Be careful with reciprocity issues. Many states won’t recognize a third-party permit/license.
http://www.handgunlaw.us
I come from a constitutional carry state (Arkansas), but currently live in NC. I have an NC permit. My personal feelings are that there shouldn’t be a permit at all (2nd Amendment).
HOWEVER, since we all know that we need to take baby steps to retake our government, I propose the following.
1. Every state should have reciprocity with each other.
2. Training should be equal to that of NC. Required to attend a CCW course, to include live fire and 8 hours of class time. covering the subjects of basic firearms manipulation, theory of concealment, and then an extensive class on law (where and when allowed to carry, and what to do when faced with deadly force).
3. A background check with the county sheriff (if your sheriff isn’t a 2nd amendment supporter, then start a campaign to vote him out)
4. and apply the law that NC has, that if a business displays a sign (must be in plain view on the door, not hidden or inside) if they don’t wish for firearms to be carried into their business.
(Transmission Ends)