Thune Bill / amendment to be considered this week

This is REALLY bad law, on a level that has nothing to do with guns. What we’re talking about is forcing one state to abide by the laws of another state...even to the detriment of the state’s own laws. You’ve just thrown state sovereignty out the window.

I’d much rather get nationwide concealed carry by having it recognized as a right. Congress can do this if they really wanted to.

Article 1, Section 4
"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."

Actually I'm quite happy my dl is honored by every state in the union. Don't you have to abide the laws of the state you are driving in?

This legislation will make the states crap or get off the pot

Why is it only the liberal agenda gets the benefit?

Aren't gay marriages honored even in states that do not allow them?

tom gunn

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14A

This sounds good but of course doesn't do much for someone who lives in New Jersey. Since NJ does "issue permits" in a theoretical sense, but doesn't in actual practice, NJ residents are out of luck till their own law gets changed.

This is all good. Passing this law will help make carry a right of citizenship in the public's mind, maybe even more effectively than a court decision. Public perception is what ultimately drives these laws and rights, and whether it be through congress or through the court, in the end what matters is that you succeeded in getting your rights recognized in writing by the government in one form or another.

If this passes, it will only increase pressure on NJ to open up it's carry licensing. When people from 49 states can carry in NJ, but New Jerseans cannot, the state law has got to change.

To Dustydog – giving “full faith and credit” to states’ acts does NOT mean enforcement of those acts within your own borders. That would mean that any law passed by any state is in force in the entire country...an obviously ludicrous situation.

What “full faith” means is that a state must accept, say, a concealed weapons license, from another state as being a valid document of that state. So a ccw from state A should be valid ID in state B. But to allow a person to carry in state B under that license means that state B must enforce a law as passed by state A, and that will result in chaos.

I'm with Graystar.

While this seems a nice idea, it is on an entirely another level, for different reasons, potentially really bad law. This is (or could be) in effect the federal gov't nationalizing CC laws. Do we really want the feds to do so? Do they have the constitutional authority to do so? What regulations will flow with that nationalization of laws? And don't states have the right (setting aside for now arguments over whether CC can constitutionally be regulated at all) to regulate carry in their own states?

Ad does the Feds doing so make, in effect, any argument that the 2nd Am. precludes any such regulation a much harder one to make?

Be careful what you wish for.

This laws imply enforces in law what was directed by Amendment 14.

It is not about the Commerce Clause or "Full Faith and Credit".

It is about the Federal government enforcing a fundamental right currently abused by several states.

There is no legit reason why CCWs in one state are not recognized in all states.

No different than drivers licenses, except driving is a priviledge not a right.

Good point BILL-TB. States are even required to recognize driving licenses from foreign countries. Chaos has not ensued.

Each state retains control of its own concealed carry laws, it just has to honor the licenses of other states.

Good point Bill-TB. States are even required by the feds to recognize driving licenses from foreign countries, and chaos has not resulted.

States will keep control over their CCW laws, they just have to honor the permits of other states.

I apologize for the above double tap.

The text of the amendment can be found here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.371:

The two preceeding sections of the US code (Sections 926B and 92C) allow cops and retired cops to carry concealed nationwide. No chaos has resulted from that either.

Anything Schumer opposes is probably a good idea...

Tom Gunn wrote, "Aren't gay marriages honored even in states that do not allow them?"

No, not universally. Most states that do not permit gay marriage do not recognize a gay marriage that has been performed in another state.

Marriage laws are, of course, by individual state. What is a "legal marriage" in one state is not necessarily a "legal marriage" in another state, and the feds will stay out of the argument unless convinced that it's a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Much as it's fun to give Schumer fits, I agree with GRAYSTAR: Forcing one state to abide by the laws of another state would throw state sovereignty out the window.

Maybe we could form an organization such as the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and write a model code/statute. I pasted the following from their website.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances is a private, non-profit membership organization dedicated to providing uniformity of traffic laws and regulations through the timely dissemination of information and model legislation on traffic safety issues.

Uniformity in traffic laws will be critical to transportatiion in the 21st century. That is why we need your help, and through your membership, not only will you be playing a role in determining America's future, but your membership will provide you with the following:

-Participation in the making of model legislation in critical transportation areas,

-Toll-free information clearinghouse on motor vehicle laws and ordinances,

They aren't forcing states to abide by the laws of other states. They are forcing states to honor the license of another state and apply THEIR OWN carry laws to residents of other states.

It's not a states' rights issue. Even if it were, states' rights do not trump individual rights! We settled that in the 1860s and 1870s.

To expand a little on what Melancton Smith said, this law only applies to states that already issue permits or allow permitless carry (vt and ak). Granted, there are only 2 states that don't issue permits or allow permitless concealed carry (WI and IL), so you still won't be able to carry there.
If a state issues carry permits, than it must recognize other states carry permits as if they were in-state unrestricted permits. The holder of the permit is responsible to know the laws of the state that they are traveling in, because those are the laws that are going to be enforced, not the issuing states laws. If this passes it will make my trip to Massachusetts this fall much more interesting!

I drive from TN to PA fairly regularly, and would love to not have to stop before entering MD, disarm, unload and disassemble my weapon, and lock it in the trunk in order to drive 30 miles and then stop, reassemble,reload, and return my weapon to my holster once I cross into PA.

Regards,
Pol

Let's see, the Constitution already REQUIRES reciprocity. What the hell do you think full faith and credit SHALL (absolute command, not request) be given ? Non-english readers need not apply!!!! This is NOT a "may be". This is not a "would be" or a "should be". In English SHALL is an order.

AND anyone who interprets the "and the effect thereof" to mean that Congress can decide the effect is interpreting one part of the clause to negate the other part. That is a No-No!!!!

---- AND Congress can't pass specific laws in this area. The grant is MAY by "general laws".

Just another case of the crooked, power-stealing judiciary attempting to gain power over We the People, the REAL bosses.

Stand up. Tell them to F.O.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

Coupla' thoughts ...

State's don't have to acknowledge gay marriage licenses from other states because Congress used its "full faith and credit" abilities to pass a law that says they don't have to.

This law doesn't affect any state's laws about CCW, just what licenses are excepted. My CCW allows me to carry in a bar in Colorado, but while Arizona recognizes my CCW I still can't carry in a bar in Arizona. Colorado license, Arizona restrictions (though I know AZ's about to fix that). Just like in Colorado I can make a right turn on red, but not in some other states (and I have to know the differences).

And it doesn't give the feds control of CCW. It just means they are forcing states to recognize licenses. If the law gets repealed, we are back to the status quo we have now. But it is one more law the anti's have to repeal to get to a gun ban, and I think the strongest pro-gun law we can have (see the post on my site).

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/07/s845-ask-your-senators-how-much-they.html

Call your senators, friends. We'll only be hurting ourselves if we miss this opportunity.

Trying a shorter post ...

State's don't have to acknowledge gay marriage licenses from other states because Congress used its "full faith and credit" abilities to pass a law that says they don't.

This law doesn't affect any state's laws about CCW, just what licenses are excepted. My CCW allows me to carry in a bar in Colorado, but while Arizona recognizes my CCW I still can't carry in a bar in Arizona.

And it doesn't give the feds control of CCW. It just means they are forcing states to recognize licenses. If the law gets repealed, we are back to the status quo we have now. But it is, I think, the strongest pro-gun law we can have.

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/07/s845-ask-your-senators-how-much-they.html

Call your senators, friends. We'll only be hurting ourselves if we miss this opportunity.

I know Mr. Hardy isn't around much to check comments, and since mine aren't getting approved I'm trying with just a link.

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/07/s845-ask-your-senators-how-much-they.html

Sorry for all the posts above. I wish I could delete out the extras. I ONLY posted multiple times because they went to moderation and I wasn't sure if Mr. Hardy was available to look at them.

If this amendment would issue a guarantee that if the state of your permanent residence has issued you a concealed carry permit then you are entitled to conceal carry into and out of another state as long as you do not take up residence in any other state. That makes sense to me. I can't stand having to take off my gun and lock it way when I travel from Oregon to other states and then back again. If Oregon thinks that I am able to have a concealed carry permit then I should be able to travel to any other state (by car / truck) and not have to be worried about it.

Congress can, in effect, do just about anything it wants as long as it includes a preface in its law that says "Congress finds that ABC affects interstate commerce, therefore ABC is prohibited/required/licensed/taxed/regulated . . ." pick your poison.

While I like the idea of concealed carry everywhere, I do not trust Congresscritters to leave it alone once they decide it's something for them to play with. Remember that the Internal Revenue Code was originally 10 pages long (or some other ridiculously small number.)

States are making their way toward wider and wider reciprocity. Some states already recognize any other permits. Some of those states that only recognized some but not others are rethinking their policy (Wyoming's recent experience being especially interesting - when they announced a cutback on reciprocity the uproar was such that they went back to status quo with a commitment to review the underlying policy, which many of us hope will lead to a BROADER reciprocity than before. But it was the WY residents that made it happen, not the Feds.)

In any event, I'm with those who would prefer to keep the federal nose out of this particular tent.

I'm trying to follow this on c-span. does anyone know the status?

BILL-TB wrote:
"There is no legit reason why CCWs in one state are not recognized in all states.
No different than drivers licenses, except driving is a priviledge not a right."

The reason that you can drive across the land with your drivers’ license is that every state...every single one...has passed a law allowing you to. However, these laws do not purport to enforce the driving laws under which that license was given. So a 16 year old with a valid Montana drivers’ license still cannot drive in New Jersey. You can drive, but only as if the license was issued under the laws of the state you’re driving in (including restrictions.)

This law is different in that it allows concealed carry in states that have no carry license. There's nothing in the proposed law that prevents an out-of-stater from carrying in Wisconsin or Illinois. For states that don't have carry licenses, the law sets its own carry restrictions.

Graystar:
Apparently you didn't read the Thune Amendment. Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/07/18/national-reciprocity-you-can-believe-in/) has the full text of the amendment up. It clearly states that reciprocity only applies to states that either grant permits or licenses or do not prohibit their residents from carrying (VT / AK). Both IL and WI prohibit concealed carry and do not issue licenses, so if you have a permit from another state you can still not carry in WI or IL.

It also requires that the carrier is treated as if they have an unrestricted license from the state that they are in and they must follow the laws regarding time / place / manner for the state that they are in. Doesn't seem to override any state laws whatsoever.

Regards,
Pol

For those critical of the amendment for its usurpation of states' authority to regulate the bearing of arms ...

I disagree. On a matter of first principle, both state and national governments are obligated to protect fundamental rights and liberties of the people. Among these is the guarantee that the right of the people to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. I believe that states do not have the authority to infringe the right to bear arms ... so this issue of usurpation of states' powers is a non-sequitur.

Do you also oppose 2A incorporation because it would usurp states' authority to regulate arms? Generally, no, because we believe that infringing the right to arms is beyond the authority of any governmental body. The writing is on the wall. If there shall remain any doubt about this at the current time, those doubts must vanish when the 2A is incorporated against the states.

Pol Mordreth - Thanks for the link. If that's the revised version then it hasn't made it into THOMAS yet.

That revised version is monumentally pointless. First, Congress would be passing a national reciprocity law that isn’t nationwide. Second, this text...

“(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”

...makes no sense because preempting state licensing requirements is exactly what the law is all about!! A ccw issued by state A must be treated by state B as if it were issued by state B, bypassing all of state B’s requirements such as state residency, training, storage, etc...basically all of the requirements a particular state deems necessary to carry a concealed weapon within its borders.

Anyways, it doesn’t matter. These types of laws never get out of committee. This bill has as much chance as one recognizing carry as a right (which is what really should be proposed!)

I can see this might work against the benefit of some people. Suppose you live in a tight gun law state (e.g. MA or NJ), but you made use of a non-resident permit in a nearby state (CT, say). Since this law would pretty much over-ride non-resident permits, you could effectively lose your right to carry in the neighboring state.

...makes no sense because preempting state licensing requirements is exactly what the law is all about!! A ccw issued by state A must be treated by state B as if it were issued by state B, bypassing all of state B’s requirements such as state residency, training, storage, etc...basically all of the requirements a particular state deems necessary to carry a concealed weapon within its borders.

I'd have to disagree there a little, as well. This doesn't change the licensing of residents within a state at all. for this to apply, you have to be a resident of a different state. Once you move and become a resident of a state, then that states licensing requirements come into play.

So, for example, I live in Tennessee. Under current rules, my permit isn't valid in Mass. I'm going there to see some extended family this fall, so I have to get a Mass non-resident to carry there. Under this rule, my permit would be good in Mass for the trip i'm taking, I wouldn't have to shell out 200 to them for their non-resident permit. If we moved to Mass, my Tennessee permit is now no longer good in Mass. I have to get a Mass resident permit to carry there.

So, I don't see how this voids any of the things you reference. I still have to worry about the state laws for storage, time / place / manner restrictions on carry, etc.

BTW, thank you for the good discussion. Reading back, I may have come off a little snarky and it was uncalled for.

Regards,
Pol

Pol Mordreth - Using your example, as you say, under this rule you'll be able to carry in Mass. with your Tennessee permit. The problem is that you're carrying in Mass. without having gone through the training that Mass. requires to get a license (theoretically speaking, of course. I'm not familiar with current Mass. licensing requirements.) So the requirements for getting a license have been pre-empted.

Also, in places such as New York City there is a storage requirement. However, there’s no criminal penalty for not storing your weapons as specified in the rules. The penalty is the loss of your license. But since New York City can’t take away your Tennessee permit, the storage requirements have been pre-empted.

Any way you look at it this is bad law. Especially since it's a nothing but a round-about way to support carry as a right. If the senator thinks it's a right then introduce a bill recognizing carry as a right and stop wasting time with laws that will do more harm than good.

How again does the law do more harm than if they passed a law requiring all states to respect all responsible gun-owners right to carry?

At most this law is redundant, as they passed that law in the 1870s and in the 1790s.

I strongly support this law. The Congress was not whining about "states rights" when they passed a law allowing law enforcement officers to carry nationally. Congress does things every day that could be construed to voilate "states rights." That debate has been well argued above, so I'll leave it at that.

If you read between the lines, you see that those who oppose this bill are afraid that they won't be able to keep violating the rights of the people from their states. They know full well that if this passes, people will see there is no negative effect and demand that restrictive laes be repealed.

All these gun laws are a pain. I live in RI. RI has very few gun shops and maybe one good one. I can't shop in MA or CT or NH, but someone in Texas has plenty of options.

In RI, I routinely find myself in MA, and often in CT and NH. MA charges $100 per year for a non-resident permit, even though residents are $100 for six years. We have to reapply annually.

Not that any of this matters. The Senate has agreed that 60 votes are needed to pass this, and I doubt it will get 60. Even if ti does, I don't see it surviving in conference with the House.

The Amendment was defeated. Vote was 58-39 but it needed 60 to pass. Luger and Voinovich defected from the GOP. Moderate Dems Specter and Bill Nelson from Florida voted against it.

Melancton – It’s harmful in a way that has nothing to do with guns. The problem relates to state sovereignty. A Congressional resolution that recognizes carry as a part of our fundamental right to arms is not the same as telling one state that they have to abide by the rules of another. It’s telling all states that they have to respect and protect our rights...and that’s always a good thing.

wow, 58-39 was amazingly close. This might actually happen some day; I had no idea it was even remotely possible.

-m@

I am also amazed it got 58 votes. Makes me angry that it needed 60. We need to keep pushing!