Should permitted gun owners be allowed to carry state to state?
September 15th, 2011 by josh farley
Washingtonians who have a license to carry a concealed gun know well that packing heat in any other state requires an education of that state’s unique laws.
A bill introduced in Congress could change that, according to the Wall Street Journal:
“Congressional lawmakers yesterday heard testimony on a federal bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines,” wrote Nathan Koppel on the WSJ’s law blog.
“The sponsors of the legislation, dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, maintain that people’s Second Amendment rights should encompass the right to carry their firearms outside their home states,” he added.
Here’s the legalese of the law would allow:
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.
About one in 27 people in Washington carry a concealed gun. Would you support such a new law, readers? And why or why not?
Tags: Concealed carry in the United States, Gun laws in the United States, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, Uniform Firearms Act
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
September 15th, 2011 at 5:21 am
Yes, I would support such a law. Folks traveling cross country, carrying a concealed weapon for their protection, can’t throw away the weapon every time they cross a border into another state that doesn’t allow such a gun.
The right to carry in one state should be honored in every state that traveler goes through.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Actually, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia all recognize Washington State concealed weapon permits. Josh is wrong. Washingtonians do not “know well that packing heat in any other state requires an education of that state’s unique laws,” because it is flatly untrue that such an education is required.
That said, the Constitution prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act should be unnecessary if states were obeying the law in the first place. Isn’t it strange how criminal governments seek to prevent citizens from carrying arms? Maybe not.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Hmmmmm, what about State’s rights? I thought that was a pillar of the conservative movement. Why should one state have to bow to the rules of another? While your’e protecting the 2nd amendment, let’s not forget about the 10th. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Agreed. But we could make it simpler and do like Vermont. No permit required to exercise a Constitutional right. From Vermont law: “As long as a resident may purchase the firearm legally under federal law, that person may legally carry the weapon, loaded or unloaded, openly or concealed, without any government oversight.” Alaska too. We spend too much time effort and money trying to regulate the legals and coddle the illegals.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I have a current CWP and have had one for many years. My Grandfather was a licensed gunsmith and law enforcement weapons safety instructor. I have known how to use and respect guns nearly my entire life.
I would support such a law. Some states already recognize my Washington State CWP and would allow me to carry in their state without any additional permits.
Laws concerning concealed weapons do vary considerably from state to state. My Husband traveled to Alaska with a few of his guns for a hunting trip about three years ago. We did our research ahead of his traveling regarding open carry, concealed carry and how and when to disclose the presence of a weapon to law enforcement if the need arose.
Responsible gun owners and carriers will do their homework ahead of time. Those who do not, have no business owning or carrying a gun.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
I don’t see any problem with this law. It’s not those with concealed carry permits who cause trouble with guns, they are responsible people.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/sep/12/guns-brandished-in-bainbridge-island-south/?partner=popular
Remember this story from three days ago? The 50 year old man who pointed his gun at another person outside a bar in Winslow was a CWP holder. They’ll give one of those to any goofball these days. You can say that CWP holders are responsible people, but saying so doesn’t make it true.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
The pertinant law reas as follows “A well-regulated Milita being nessessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Hmm…. seems to me that I have all the “permission” I need already.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about concealed weapons. The 10th amendment says “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.” Otherwise, the federal government cannot make laws that over ride state law. The citizens of that state should be able to have their own laws and expect folks who enter their state to follow them.
You can legally “keep and bear arms” in any state, but you cannot keep and hide arms in any state. You can’t pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to follow.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
The 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about concealed weapons. The 10th amendment says “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.” Otherwise, the federal government cannot make laws that over ride state law. The citizens of that state should be able to have their own laws and expect folks who enter their state to follow them.
You can legally “keep and bear arms” in any state, but you cannot keep and conceal arms in any state. You can’t pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to follow.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Lately I have heard states’ rights brought up by liberals more often than not. The fact is, the Constitution specifically prohibits states from taxing or interfering with interstate commerce, conducting their own foreign policy, etc. If you want the states to have the right to do those things, the only honest thing to do would be to amend the constitution. The right to levy tariffs and restrict interstate trade is, in fact, a “power…delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” so the 10th Amendment does not apply. The same goes for arms restrictions. If you want to disarm the American people, you should be honest enough to at least amend the constitution so that it is clear that you can do that.
The thing I find most astonishing about liberals is their insistence on reading every single provision of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of what it says.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Write to your elected federal representatives – Cantwell, Murray, Dicks, heck, even Mr. Obama since he’ll have a chance to veto the current National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (currently H.R. 822), and tell them you support this idea!
Tell them about instances where carrying a firearm as a traveler is in your best interest, like when you’re in rural areas where law enforcement may not be, or like when hiking in National Parks where even angry mountain goats can kill (see Olympic National Park story where a male hiker was gored and bled to death as his helpless family watched since no one had a firearm), or in big cities where thugs will attack you and your tourist family for just looking at them (see recent story from Seattle where tourist family was attacked on downtown bus and tourist was stabbed by thug who just plead “not guilty”).
Remind the super-smart elected officials that interstate commerce is left hurting since CCW permit holders often go out of their way to avoid travel to states that don’t recognize their CCW which leads to lost revenue for that state and it’s businesses that rely on travel, especially leisure travel.
As for the Second Amendment, it doesn’t say a lot of things but it does say that I have the God-given right (not a govt-given right) to keep and bear firearms. It’s written plainly so as to not confuse the simplest minds amongst us.
Oh yeah, “Robin in Manette” misspoke when citing the story about the guys with guns from this past week. The link provided does not mention that either person had a CCW permit, just that they pointed weapons as someone else. Nice try….for a lib.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:37 am
What it seems to boil down to is individual choice for travelers and – if able – dealing with situations that come of traveling, being attacked and using a gun in self defense in a state that frowns on concealed weapon permits from the home state.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:05 am
A concealed weapon is not interstate trade.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Robin, The United States Consitiution is the Supreme Law of the Land and trumps State, Federal, Local, and any other lesser “law” that contradicts the Constitution. The Second Amendment neither prescribes nor proscribes the manner in which I choose to bear my arms, or for that matter what type of arms I choose to bear. It is very clear that Right may not be infringed upon. Therefore any law that hampers, in any way, my choice of arms or manner of carrage thereof is unconstitutional and void.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Mike, you can open carry (bear arms) in any state in the union. Nobody is infringing on your right to bear arms. Carrying a concealed weapon is another story and since these laws already exist obviously they are legal. I applaud you for defending your second amendment rights, but in the process please don’t trample my 10th amendment rights.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:38 am
While I might agree that a concealed weapon is not interstate trade, the gun banners have repeatedly held that it is. In fact, this was the justification for Clinton’s bans on weapons with large magazines, weapons that only looked like assault weapons, and carrying weapons in the vicinity of schools. So carrying weapons in the vicinity of schools is interstate trade, but concealed weapons are not? Or maybe, when the anti-gun crowd is in control again, carrying concealed weapons will suddenly be interstate trade when the feds want to ban concealed carry nationwide?
September 17th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Once again, saying you can’t take a concealed weapon into a school doesn’t prevent you from exercising your 2nd amendment rights. Personally I don’t excuse twisting the truth by either party. Of course both parties do it all the time. I will do my best to call my guys on it when I catch em, you do the same.
Feds can’t ban concealed weapons nationwide, that would be an infringement of the 10th amendment. Besides, nobody at the federal level is even talking about doing that. I don’t see anyone trying to ban guns, so it all just seems like a distraction to keep cons and libs arguing with each other so we don’t notice what’s going on behind the curtain.
Both parties are bought and paid for by their corporate masters.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:18 am
What do interstate travelers do to protect themselves if they are riding a bike cross country and carry. If they happen to pass a school in another state that doesn’t recognized a concealed carry permit, then they are inadvertently breaking the law?
If an incident should happen and the bike traveler protects themselves in another state – would the gun holder be jailed for illegal use and carry of that weapon if they used it for self defense but illegally carried it into that state?
September 17th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Ooooh. “Corporate masters” keeping us from seeing “what’s going on behind the curtain.” Shall we hear about “running dogs of capitalism” next? I hate to tell you this, but the yellow submarine was sold for scrap nearly 40 years ago. There are no secrets in the day of the Internet.
September 17th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Sharon, You can ride your bike past a school with a gun, you just cannot go onto school grounds. In a state that doesn’t recognize your concealed weapons permit you could either open carry or simply unload the gun and pack it away. A vast majority of people on this planet pass the time in complete safety without the need of packing heat.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Yes. If mechanisms are in place to ensure only those responsible and in compliance can be licenced – much like driving – interstate travel under this permit should be allowed. Also agree with Colleen.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
If that is so Robin, why carry guns at all?
In an emergency, an unloaded, packed away gun is without value.
Some folks might even look at a lone traveling female bike rider openly carrying a gun as a challenge to their personhood….not a good idea to appear like a personal challenge to anyone.
September 17th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Hey Robin – try your open theory in NY NY. I think you will find yourself intimately involved with NYPD.
September 17th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Robin,
Your 10th amendment claim that states have the power to infringe the second amendment is absurd on its face. The 10th amendment reads “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” The 2nd Amendment prohibits the Federal and State governments the power to infringe the Peoples’ Right to Keep and Bear Arms (once again pointing out that there are no restrictions on the manner of carry (bearing)of said arms) the 10th amendment reinforces the other 9 in prohibiting the States the power to override them.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I certainly believe that anyone who is a law abiding citizen (a CWP proves that as background checks are done upon renewal) should be able to carry across state lines. There are several times I would love to travel to Nevada via California for my son to visit the sites there but due to the fact I can’t carry in California he mises out.
September 21st, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Yes. This should be allowed. When compared to a driver’s license, which is accepted in all 50 states, I don’t see the issue. Any cop will tell you a driver’s license is a priviledge granted by a state…not a right.
Then you take into consideration what one needs to qualify for a concealed carry license and compare that to the requirements to obtain a driver’s license. Basically there is no comparison. Anyone can get a driver’s license.
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
No, Susan and Robin.
There is a federal law called the Gun Free School Zones Act. This law makes it illegal to come within 1000 feet of a school with a gun that is not unloaded and locked in your vehicle. As applied to the state of Washington in particular, this federal law exempts WA state CPL holders. Holders of WA state CPL’s CAN go onto a school grounds with a loaded and concealed firearm. They just can’t bring it into the school building. However, a CPL holder from another state that has CPL reciprocity in Washington is NOT exempted from the Federal law. Likewise if you are traveling in a different state that has recriprocity with Washington—-the Gun Free School Zones Act does NOT exempt you as if you were in the state of your CPL.
Passage of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act will not make the GFSZA go away. It will still be illegal to drive on the freeway within 1000 ft of a school. The Reciprocity Act does not address this oversight. There is, however, another bill out there called the Citizens Protection Act which is meant to abolish the GFSZA.
State and federal gun laws are to tangled and overlapped with each other that it becomes very confusing to follow when traveling through different jurisdictions. You are almost guarnateed to unknowingly and unintentionally break a federal state or local law just by going on a road trip through several states. It is impossible to travel freely even within the county without having to pass within 100 feet of a K-12 school.
It leads to another constitutional amendment that protects concealed carry holders—the 4th. Keep it concealed.
September 26th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
The GFSZA was found unconstitutional in 1995. However, Congress passed the law again with minor revisions, declaring that it only affected firearms that had traveled interstate. This has not been challenged in the Supreme Court, although some circuit courts have held that the revisions were enough to make the law constitutional. The law basically makes travel with a handgun impossible for more than a few blocks in most areas. It is my belief that the Supreme Court will again see this as not affecting interstate commerce enough to uphold the ban, but the wheels of justice turn slowly.
September 29th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
What some people fail to know is that Washington State permits are not recognized in Oregon or California. Washington State permits are recognized in many other states in the country but many residents from Washington go to California via Oregon for vacations and if they have a concealed firearm are acting criminally.
Many gun rights critics would say this would further open the door to crime but what criminal would try a car jack a family if he knew that mom or dad was packing John Browning’s famous implement.
We live under a federal bill of rights, we should honor EVERY amendment in that bill and not choose which one suits us for the day.
I say yes to a concealed carry reciprocity. I’m sure the predator watching the car full of tourists would think twice before choosing his prey.
September 29th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Jay Jay you are absolutely right in you observation regarding the Bill of Rights. The Left would have us pick and choose which of those Rights to apply situationally by saying that the Costitution is a “living, breathing document” It is NOT! The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND and as such is not subject to reinterpretation of convenience, it means exactly what it says. NO Citizen needs permission from the Government, any government to Keep and Bear Arms of whatever nature and in whatever manner they so choose, any “law” that restricts a Citizen from doing so IN ANY WAY is Unconstitutional on its face and should be stricken as such. We have “reciprocity” in the one Law of the Land, what’s needed is Constitutionality.
September 29th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Lot’s of big talk from arm chair tough guys. But here is a quote from the real world…
“They left the man where they beat him and went through the house, the man told deputies. He said he retrieved his gun, but the men took it from him and beat him more.”
Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/sep/28/man-says-he-was-beaten-in-home-invasion/#ixzz1ZOBri9HR
September 29th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Robin to extrapolate from this one story is kind of silly. Just because this individual, in this situation, could not protect himself with a firearm he wasn’t carrying, is no reason to keep the rest of us from protecting ourselves. Personally, I would be happier with a Dirty Harry on every corner but we can’t afford the tax bill for that. Just remember, when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.
September 29th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
When a homeowner’s dogs began barking in bizarre fashion, he grabbed a handgun to investigate while his wife called the police. The victim of two burglaries in recent weeks, the homeowner cautiously approached his detached garage. He confronted two prowlers lurking inside, drew his handgun and told them not to move. Initially it appeared the suspects would wait for police, but suddenly the desperate men charged. The homeowner made quick work of the criminals, opening fire and connecting with each shot. One suspect fell dead. The other lay wounded. The homeowner grabbed a medical kit and provided assistance to the wounded man until police arrived. (The Chronicle, Centralia, WA, 05/23/2011)
September 29th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
A man and a woman awoke in the middle of the night to the sounds of what they figured to be someone breaking into their home. When they went to investigate, their suspicions were correct; two masked men had entered their home. One of the intruders approached the man, demanding money and jewelry, and then pistol whipped him, giving the woman time to grab their shotgun. The woman handed the gun to the man, and he and the suspects exchanged fire. One of the intruders fled, and the other was fatally shot and found by police in the driveway of the home. The male resident sustained minor injuries. (The Daily Herald, Tacoma, WA, 11/04/10)
September 29th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Tim Lewis was at the park throwing a Frisbee for his German shepherd when he said “all hell broke loose.” Three pit bulls, all off-leash, quickly advanced upon his dog and one of them attacked. Lewis tried to pull the pit bull off, but then the other two joined in. The owner of the pit bulls showed up and helped Lewis pull back the most aggressive pit bull, but then it turned on Lewis. That’s when Lewis, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew his pistol and fired a shot, striking the attacking dog. The wounded dog was recovering after surgery. “If I didn’t have my gun, I’d be dead right now,” Lewis said. “It’s not something I wanted to do. I love animals.” (Kirkland Patch, Kirkland, WA, 05/21/11)
September 29th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Just a couple more quotes from the real world for you Robin.
September 29th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
That’s great Mike, but you cherry picked those articles. My point was that I just took random articles for one month from the Sun. I don’t need to read the Kellermann study to confirm what I can already see with my own two eyes…
September 30th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Come on Robin you found an article that supported your point and pounced on it, I was able to quickly find three that countered your point and I used them, if anything we both “cherry picked”, it’s a common practice in debate. Fact is I could have presented dozens of articles but I chose those with local-ish connections to make them relevant. Facts are that Firearms are used defensively, in the United States, nearly 2.5 million times a year on average (Gertz/Kleck 1995: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html ) Usually without a shot being fired and generally without drawing the notice of the media. The myth you propigate that your weapon its more likely to be used against you in an outright lie:
“It has also been claimed that many people who attempt to use guns for self-protection have the gun taken from them by the criminal and used against them. Although this type of incident is not totally unknown, it too is extremely rare. In the 1979-1985 National-Crime-Victimization-Survey sample, it was possible to identify crime incidents in which the victim used a gun for protection and lost a gun to the offender(s). At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim. Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching a gun out of the victim’s hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household’s guns when a resident attempted to stop him using another household gun. Thus, the 1% figure probably represents an upper limit.” (Gertz/Kleck 1995).
Robin please do some real research before you spout your already long-discredited Gun-grabber propaganda, it does your case no good at all.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Robin, on the opposite side of that, remember the active shooter in Issaquah last week who was killed by police? If you watched the KING5 story, a nieghbor who lived just down the street from the school was interviewed by the reporter. He took a group of terrified kids in who were running down the street past his house and let them hide in his garage. While they hid and waited for police, the kids were so terrified that the cops might not save them in time that several of them began asking him if he owned any guns was prepared to defend them with it. Here is what that nieghbor said his reply to those kids were: “I told the kids, well that’s a very interesting question because I never thought owning a gun was neccessary.”
I bet he’s re-thinking it now. I pray it never happens to you or to anyone, but perhaps experiencing a life threateninng situation like that where the cops aren’t right there to help you makes a person like you or that neighbor see the neccessity.
September 30th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Mike, I listed five stories that appeared when I did a site search for “guns”. One of my stories was about two gun owners who effectively defended themselves from a crime. This is how it always works. Progressives are fair and impartial and show both sides of a story, conservatives twist the facts and misrepresent issues.
So what if criminals do or don’t take guns away from home owners on a regular basis. That is just one of the many things that can go wrong when you pull a gun on someone. And the fact remains that is exactly what happened in this real story. If your mind is already made up, then you have stopped learning.
KitsapRes, The man who said he never thought he needed a gun, didn’t need one. Neither he nor any of the frightened children were harmed. If he’d had a gun and threatened this suicidal maniac who knows what bad things may have happened. So your story just proves my point.
In case you haven’t read any of my previous posts, I’ve had someone threaten me with a gun. I have two people close to me who killed themselves with guns. I’ve witnessed shooting accidents. I used to hunt with a guy who accidentally shot and killed a lady in a hunting accident. I grew up around guns and was always taught a healthy respect for them.
September 30th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Robin – based on your previous post you must have lived a very eventful, if atypical life. But it is not germane to the discussion at hand, the question was should reciprocity be granted to CCL holders by other states. I think it should be, it seems to me that CCL holders are the kind of folks who go to the trouble to undergo the background check and jump through the required hoops.
September 30th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Ron, I feel that it would infringe on the 10th amendment rights of individual states. Do you have kids? Do you want me wandering your kids playground with a gun? I sure as heck don’t want you doing that at my kids school. If I live in a state that forbids that kind of activity and I’m visiting that state, I should respect their rules. It’s the respectful thing to do.
September 30th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Oh, and about those CCL holders and their back ground checks. One of the stories I posted was about a CCL holder flashing his gun in a bar parking lot after an argument. So much for that theory. They’ll give a permit to any jack knob with the $55 and no felony convictions.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/sep/12/guns-brandished-in-bainbridge-island-south/
September 30th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Robin, I’ve already dismissed your 10th amendment arguement as meritless. The 10th amendment does not grant the states the power to override the Bill of Rights, in fact it CLEARLY states exactly the opposite. The 10th amendment reads “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”
The Bill of Rights is a list of Powers prohibited to the Governmnet and Rights of the People, they are clearly written as such. Your arguement would effectively allow the State of Washington to bar free speech and conduct warrantless searches because it’s “their rule”.
Personally Robin, I don’t have a problem with you carrying a gun at a School, so long as you are doing so safely.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:34 am
I suspect you don’t have kids. I catch you with a gun near my kids school you and I are gonna have a problem.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:15 am
You suspect wrong. Clearly you have lost the arguement, why not just admit it and let it go? Stooping to hollow threats just makes you look foolish.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:51 am
“I catch you with a gun near my kids school you and I are gonna have a problem.”
Right. Because clearly, in your personal universe, everyone with a gun is a dangerous nut who is out to get your kids. Fortunately, reality is much different.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:58 am
When it comes to my kids, all bets are off.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I have to wonder who is a greater threat to public safety: responsible, licensed gun owners or people who irrationally fear that these gun owners are out to attack their kids? What are you going to do about it anyway? Assault the gun owner? Kids are far more likely to die in a swimming pool than from a gun. Shall we ban swimming pools? Sorry, but paranoia makes poor public policy.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Oh and BTW Mike, the fact remains that you cannot cross state line with your Wa state CPL so in fact I’m right. Luckily for the rest of us you are not a Supreme court justice…
October 4th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Robin,
Did you stick you tounge out while thumbing you nose at the computer while saying “neener-neener” too? Please….
It’s only a matter of time until the Court comes across the right case to make to the correct ruling, they are tossing Unconstutional laws aside at a historical rate these days.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
CJ, I am forming the National Coalition to Ban High-Capacity Assault Minivans, you can kill 10 people at a time with one of those!
October 4th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
You’re just being silly now. But then I think carrying a gun around to feel safe is silly too, so I guess you are just a silly guy. I’d like someone to explain to me what you are so afraid of? I’ve lived the 50 years of my life, been a confrontational person the whole time and never felt like I needed to carry a gun to feel safe. Man up!
October 4th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Just as silly as your arguments Robin, and who said that I carried a gun? My point is not that I do, it’s that I can.
I also wear seatbelts, is that “silly”? Am I somehow “afraid” or is it a prudent precaution in the event “stuff” happens? I lock my doors, and have a spare tire in the car too. I carry jumper cables, fire extinguishers, and a first aid kit. Not sure how preparedness somehow effects my relative man-ness. Guns are tools that, like seatbelts, spare tires, and jumper cables are better to have and not need, than need and not have when the “stuff” hits the fan.
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Seatbelts, fire extinguishers, first aid kids all have measurable positive effects. Just like the survey that shows folks who live in homes with guns are 2.7 times more likely to become victims of homicide by gun. My position is not silly, in fact for many years it was consider normal in this country. The current obsession by young men who feel they need to have a gun to be safe is what is not normal. Yes a gun is a tool, when I’m done using my tools I put them safely away.
Oh and BTW, in 1999 80 people died every day to guns. So once again, you are wrong, many people died at the hands of gun owners today.
October 4th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
I am really not sure where you came by your statistic “that shows folks who live in homes with guns are 2.7 times more likely to become victims of homicide by gun”, but again your argument is not germane. The discussion is about whether people with legal CCL permits be granted reciprocity by other states. If you personally feel safer without a firearm great, don’t have one. Try to stick to the point.
October 4th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Robin, as you like to throw statistics around, take the state of Florida who posts CPL stats on thier state web page. Florida has issued just over 2 million CPL’s Over the last 25 years. In that same 25 years, only 168 CPLs were revoked due to the CPL holder committing a crime with his/her firearm. That revocation rate is less than thousandths of one percent. The rate of law enforcement officers losing their gun and badge across the entire country due to being a “bad cop” is at a very much higher rate. As you can see, CPL holders are a very law abiding class of citizens. So when you say 80 people were killed by guns, I ask you, how many of those 80 were killed by a CPL holder, and if they were, was that CPL holder actiing against the law and committing unjustified homocide? I think the answer you’ll find is ZERO. This article is talking about law abiding citizens who want reciprocity. The law abiders who aren’t carrying guns in other states because they are following the law. It is not talking about criminals who will carry guns anywhere regardless of what the law says. The article and the bill speaks of apples. You’re ranting about oranges.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Robin my coming home alive from an assault is a “measurable, positive effect” at least to my family….
You claim 29000 people in the United States are killed by people using firearms each year, at the same time 2,500,000 people in the United States used a firearm to SAVE their lives. Thats better than a 9:1 ratio of lives saved. Since well over half of the annual firearms deaths are suicides (people who would find another way if the gun wasn’t availiable) that ratio, presumably, is even higher than the availiable numbers indicate if you only address accidental (0.8% of annual accidental deaths involve firearms) and criminal firearms deaths.
720 People used a firearm defensively today.
October 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I’ve posted links to all of my stats. Go back through this thread and previous stories to read the Kellerman survey. To the rest of you who are pulling stats out your arses. Show me the facts. If you are just gonna spout bogus figures off the top of your head don’t bother to waste my time.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
As you requested Robin, here it is. Please note that it’s coming straight from the Florida Department of Licensing website—Not my arse.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
October 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Robin, here are somemore stats for you
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
October 5th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Cool, Ummmm, did you read it? It says that 5702 people issued CPL’s in Florida had them revoked because they committed a crime after it was issued. They had to turn away over 4000 convicts who applied for permits. Here is their July 2011 newsletter 24 pages of which are the names of CPL holders who were either fined or had their licenses revoked.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/July2011/July_Newsletter_2011.pdf
According to this report on the Florida website they issued 123k new CPL’s from July ’10 through June ’11. 786 were revoked, 3,016 were suspended for disqualifying arrests and 1,219 were suspended for DVI (Domestic Violence). That’s a total of 4,011 revoked or suspended in one year, that’s 3.4% of the new licenses issued that year.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/07012010_06302011_cw_annual.pdf
Hehehe, according to the previous linked newsletter they had to add three new investigators in July to keep up with the work load.
This ain’t Fox news, you don’t get to cherry pick your stats. Yeah only 168 of those licenses were revoked because the CPL holder used their concealed weapon. But you compared a one year stat against the total number of CPL’s ever issued. The real number is .13% not >.0001%. Or 168 into the 123k new licenses issued that year.
October 6th, 2011 at 9:00 am
River Rat, your link cites the National Self Defense survey. There were some pretty serious faults with that survey highlighted here.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
The second site is a pro gun site that also quotes from this same flawed survey.
October 6th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Robin, you probably donate to and receive mailings from the Brady campaign. We can tell which way you lean. Only slaves are disarmed, I plan on keeping mine, as a matter of fact, got some trigger time in today with my wife and son. How many more Jews would we have today if Hitler hadn’t disarmed them and exterminated at Auschwitz and other camps???
October 6th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Look Robin, this discussion is not about whether guns are good or bad. The question is whether a person who has been deemed worthy of a concealed pistol license by a responsible agency in their home state should be granted reciprocity by other states. I too, can cite studies that show more guns less crime, but that is not the question. The question is not whether guns are good or bad. Try to focus. The question is whether a person who has been deemed worthy of a concealed pistol license by a responsible agency in their home state should be granted reciprocity by other states and if not, why not.
October 6th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Ron, this discussion veered far from that many posts ago. Go back and read where I said that I believe it would be an infringement on 10th amendment rights.
October 7th, 2011 at 1:57 am
A license is a license.. how does a license to carry concealed differ from a drivers license in as much as you can drive in any other state regardless of what state issued your license. Admittedly, many people doing much traveling from state to state carry a firearm for safety sake, licensed or otherwise. I would MUCH rather have people licensed to carry where they live and have that license honored where ever they may travel… just saying.
I am pro-gun and pro-gun education. Too bad the education part isn’t offered in ALL our High schools. I’d back it being required to know how to handle a gun safely by age of 18. If you can handle a voting ballot, you should know how to handle and NOT handle a firearm. I BELIEVE THIS WOULD SAVE LIVES.
October 7th, 2011 at 6:40 am
So if I came to your house as a guest would it be OK for me to bring a concealed weapon without your knowledge?
Gun education is the responsibility of the family not public schools. Can you imagine the liability of a school taking kids to a shooting range? I agree though, if you are going to own a gun you should get some safety training. It’d be cool if you could buy a gun that included a membership and basic training at a local range as a package deal.
October 7th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Funny you should say that, Robin. In fact, many schools sponsor rifle teams and interscholastic competition. The Potomac High School Rifle League, for example, competes in the Washington, DC area. There are also school teams in Alaska and other parts of the country. Some compete internationally. I cannot find examples of firearms accidents in these schools.
October 7th, 2011 at 8:01 am
The Potomac High School Rifle League? Hahaha! Sure, if you attend some high priced private academy that also offers Crew and LaCrosse. We’re talking about the real world here.
https://sites.google.com/site/potomachighschoolrifle/schools
My family homesteaded in Alaska, you have to carry a large caliber rifle to the bus stop to protect yourself from Kodiak bears.
Here is a good story about the importance of safety at the range.
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2011/09/haps-corner-chapter-of-accidents.html
October 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Robin are you kidding me?????? C’mon now, you seem to be a lot smarter than that. It seems you are trying to convince your brain to believe what your eyes are seeing. I think your real fear is not so much about guns or people with guns, but FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. You lack an understanding of our gun laws. Do yourself a favor to get over it by learning it!!!!
You apparently do not realize that states have many different types of licenses which grants the licensee permission to carry a firearm in public to some degree. In the state of Florida, there are nearly 30 types of these licenses. A Conceleald Pistol License is only one of the 30, and this article and blog is discussing that particular type of license—the “apple” licenses.
The links you just posted are not talking about CPL holders. In fact, if you look at the names listed in the first link that you “hee hee’d” about, not a single revoked license a CPL. NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! They were all other types of firearm licensees, mostly security guards and recovery agents. Quit making a fool of yourself. Not only were you trying to include the oranges (non-licensed criminals) with the apples (CPL holders), but now you’re throwing in the entire fruit basket (any type of person who has a gun, up to and including judges and law enforcement officers).
Your links and the link I posted shows the fact that in the past year, 18,805 CPLs were issued by the state of Florida, and in that same period, ZERO CPLs were revoked. That’s ZERO as in 0. On top of that, in the past 25 years, 2 million licenses were issued of which only 168 were revoked due to crimes committed with a firearm by that CPL holder. The non-firearm crime revocations (although very small too) does not count because it’s due to crimes that the holder committed while not in possession of his licensed firearm—the very act that you’re afraid of. It could be, for example, a CPL holder who responsibly left his gun at home when he was sober because he intended to go to a party and consume alcohol. But then he lost judgement when he became intoxicated and received a DUI that did not include “firearm possession” in the arresting charges.
This discussion is about the class of people who are apples, Robin. The oranges aren’t on here debating with you because they simply have no care if this bill passes or not. They are already carrying loaded firearms on them across the country and in your neighborhood where your children play, and the apples are traveling on those same roads with them, but doing it unarmed because unlike the oranges, they abide laws. The apples are supporting this bill because they want the law books to give them what the oranges have already given to themselves.
October 7th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Robin, our state laws exempt anyone who gives a firearms safety course to school children, that was authorized by the school authorities, to bring a firearm into a school. Furthermore, it also exempts anyone participating in gun competitions at the school that are approved by the school.
The school authorities have no obligation to seek your permission before approving these programs……..
Are those guns okay in your kids’ school without your knowledge?
Please read this article. It was written by a person who was once gun-naive much like you……until she began seeing the real world as it is on the streets, and not through reading online surveys and reports while locked inside the security of her home.
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/144113-cops-and-armed-citizens
October 7th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
KitsapRes, thanks for the replies, WELL SAID.
October 8th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Everything Robin has written on is not true.
She states you can open carry in any state of the Union. Wrong–many states prohibit open carrying of firearms. Most states that do allow it aren’t allowing it by matter of written law, but by virtue of no state law existing that prohibits it.
She states that in states which don’t recognize the out of state CPL you’re carrying, you can unconceal your handgun and open carry through a school zone. Very wrong!! This is wrong even in our own Washington state which allows open carry. Doing this violates the GFSZA and will gurantee you 5 years in Federal Prison.
She states you cannot cross state lines with your WA CPL. Of course you can. The Federal FOPA law applies to everyone (not just CPL holders). This law protects you from traveling interstate with a firearm that is not illegal by federal law definition. If you’re traveling by car from WA to AZ (two states that have reciprocity but are separated by states that don’t), you can travel through CA and not face arrest as long as your firearm is being transported under the rules of the FOPA. This means it won’t be very good for self defense because it won’t be loaded and concealed on your person as you pass through CA, but you will at least be guranteed safe passage as you transit that state.
She’s throwing out links to Kitsap Sun stories of two gun brandishing incidents and another of a homeowner who was beaten with his own gun, and stressing that these people are CPL holders gone wild. WRONG!! No where in the stories did it say these people were CPL holders. Robin is grouping all gun possessers as CPL holders. Perhaps she fails to understand two things: 1) You don’t need a CPL to carry a gun in public, you only need a CPL to carry it in public LEGALLY, and 2) CPL’s are not required, nor does it even apply, for guns kept and used in your home or place of abode.
10 Amendment rights being trampled? She is wrong again. Everyone who cries this 10th Amendment defense in order to fight this reciprocity bill have one thing in common: THEY DID NOT READ THE BILL!!! An excerpt is written in the above blog article, but the words of the bill continue on after that. Here is the rest of the bill from where the blog left off:
‘(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.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.
This bill is modeled after HR-218 (LEOSA) which was passed into law back in 2004. LEOSA exempts active and retired law enforcement officers from state CPLs, thus giving them, in a sense, reciprocity to carry concealed firearms nation-wide whenever they are off-duty such as on vacation. There are limitations in the LEOSA that mirror some of the limitations in this reciprocity bill. For one, the law enforcement officer must follow the firearm laws in the state he’s visiting
AS you can see (if you read the entire bill), passing this bill will NOT change any state’s law as far as how that state chooses to regulate gun possession by CPL holders. In fact, CPL holders will only be allowed to conceal carry in 48 states since two states don’t even have CPL laws or permits. Passage of this bill makes only an administrative change—it creates reciprocity among all state CPLs. That’s it!! It reduces paperwork, red tape, and confusion among CPL holders who are trying to follow the 48 different state laws. It absolutely does not override any gun possession or prohibition law of any state. A CPL holder will have to abide by all of the gun rules in the state he visits, and not by the gun rules of the state he recieved his license in. Here’s an example:
Currently, WA does not recognize Oregon CPLs because Oregon state law allows 18 yr-olds to be issued CPLs and WA state law does not. So, if WA gave recipricity to OR, then 18 yr-old OR cPL holders would be allowed to visit WA with concealed weapons which is something that is illegal in this state. Reciprocity between two states cannot be granted if doing so will create laws that conflict each other.
But under this federal reciprocity bill, the only thing being recognized is the CPL. That’s it!! The state laws of gun possession are not touched and it does not change. So now, the 18 year old Oregon CPL holder CANNOT visit WA with his CPL, but when he turns 21, he can. Why? Because it’s our state law, and the 10th amendment protects that.
Likewise, WA CPL holders will be able to carry concealed firearms in California as long as it does not have a 15 round magazine. Why? Because 15 round magazines are illegal by California’s state law, and the 10th amendment protects that.
A California CPL holder will be able to travel to New Jersey with a concealed firearm as long as it’s not loaded with hollow points. Why? Because that’s New Jersey’s law, and the 10th amendment protects that.
Those same Washington, Oregon, California or New Jersey CPL holders will NOT be able to carry thier concealed weapon anywhere in Illinois. Why? Because Illios state law prohibits concealed carry, and the 10th amendment protects that.
The only thing you repeatedly said correctly, Robin, is that you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe. You are absolutely right. And that is why you should educate yourself on the subject before you put your mouth into gear in a discussion like this.
It’s about CPL permits and CPL holders—A class of gun owning citizens who have a track record of striving to learn the laws so they can be responsible in following it. It’s not about anyone who has five fingers who can pick up and do goofy stuff.
October 8th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
KitsapRes, again, thanks for the replies and the research, maybe now Robin will shut up, but I doubt it…………
October 8th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Amen RiverRat57, but I don’t think it will happen. Folks like Robin are immune to logic. They know what they “feel” and what they “feel” constitutes reality in their minds. Robin believes guns are evil and those of us who legally carry them a danger to her and to society.
October 9th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Are you guys still here? This will be my final post in this thread.
The idea that you should be able to force other people to accept your right to carry a concealed weapon wherever you want is not only illegal, but just plain rude and self centered. The people of a state should be able to vote and set the rules in their own state. You, as a guest in that state should have the civility to respect their rules or don’t go there.
If you work at a bar and do the night deposits you have a legitimate reason to have a CPL. If you are just an everyday Joe with a Napoleonic complex dropping your kids off at school, I don’t see the need. Thankfully the majority still rules in this country and you cannot carry a gun onto the school grounds. I sure hope that never changes.
This discussion is silly anyway. We don’t need to be doing anything with our gun laws. We need to be working on fixing our economy, finding jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and tooling our industry to be leaders in new energy markets. Instead we waste our time worrying about stupid issues designed to divert us from what’s really important.
I’m out…
October 9th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
This bill is not forcing other people to accept rights to carry concealed weapons. It will not create anything different than what is already happening NOW with CPL holders and thier guns. Everything about carrying guns as it is right NOW continues to stay the same. The only thing that changes is the centralization of paperwork. It’s just the same as driving your WA plated car into Oregon. Oregon recognizes your WA plates even though you paid the registration fees to WA state. But you must respect Oregon’s laws and not exceed 65-MPH on the freeway like you can on Washington’s freeways. Likewise, the Oregon truck driver who tows three trailers behind his semi-truck must disconnect one of those trailers before he enters Washington state because he must respect our state’s law which prohibits 3-trailers on semis.
Just like I mentioned Robin, here’s the perfect example: Concealed carry is prohibited in Illinois and Washington DC. This bill will not force IL and DC to accept conceal carry rights in thier jurisdictions. There is simply no “right” to carry concealed in those two places, and if this bill passes, those rights will remain preserved meaning that all CPL holders from other states will have absolutely no “right” to take thier concealed weapons into IL and DC.
This is how naive you are about Washington’s conceal carry laws…… The Federal GFSZA (18 USC 922q) exempts Washington state CPL holders because Washington already had (and still has) an existing state law (RCW 9.41.280) that permits it’s CPL holders to bring thier firearms onto the school grounds. How is this possible? Because of your cherished 10th Amendment rights. That’s right Robin……. Federal law cannot put it’s fingers on a right already granted to you by the state. So as you can see for a gun hater like you, while you are crying 10th Amendment foul, the 10th Amendment has backfired in your face. If it wasn’t for the grace of the 10th Amendment, all of the CPL holders who drop off thier kids with thier guns on them would already be doing federal prison time.
But wait!! There’s more. RCW 9.41.280 not only allows CPL holders to possess thier guns when dropping off kids at school, but it also accomodates them if they have to go into the school building where they cannot take thier guns. How? That same state law allows CPL holders to leave thier guns locked inside thier cars while the car is parked in the school’s parking lot. That’s right Robin, and Federal law can’t touch that because of the 10th Amendment. Is it okay for me to do that at your kids’ school without your knowledge? Of course it is, because it’s the people of Washington state’s law—not Robin’s law. This law allows CPL holders ONLY—and ONLY CPL holders—to do all of that. It does not allow Robin the Gun Resistor, or Billy the 7-11 Gun Brandisher, or Timmy the poor fellow who gets pistol whipped in his own home with his keep in the bedroom gun. None of your classes are legally allowed to do it because you tend to be goof balls with guns, whether it’s due to ignorance of what the law allows (like you), or disregard of what the laws say (like Billy). Washington state gives these exemptions only to CPL holders because because they are recognized as the responsible class of gun owners. Locked in your car in a school parking lot may sound irresponsible, but that’s only the law requirements. I can guarantee you that a CPL holder would not only leave it in his car only according to what the law says; he would also add his own steps to that in order to be responsible. Imagine the classes of Robins and Billys trying to follow a broad direction of a law that’s written like that. No innocent person has been killed in Washington state by a CPL holder’s gun. Only guns from the Billys, Timmys and Robins
Oh wait, but there’s more. As you touched on…… Can a CPL holder bring his concealed gun into your home without your knowledge? Yes he can, UNLESS you tell him to leave or don’t show up. But of course, you will only know he has a gun if you asked him about it right? Otherwise, he’s not obligated to verbally unconceal his physically concealed handgun to you. So to get over that, you can post a “no guns allowed” sign in your front yard and tell all the “Billys” that you’re unarmed and vulnerable. However, if you do that, unlike the laws in some other states, a “no guns allowed” sign in front of your home or business in this state of Washington has no force of the law. This means that if the CPL holder refuses to leave, you can call the cops, but the charge against him will be simple trespass with no firearm related charges attached to it. That’s it!! Trespass. But don’t worry because keep this in mind…… CPL holders won’t bring thier guns into your home because they are the class of gun owners who follows laws of the state and respects private property rights. So here’s an advice, Robin: If a person on your property with a gun refuses your orders to leave, CALL THE COPS IMMEDIATELY because he’s probably Billy. Then, hope Billy doesn’t fire at you and have his bullet reach you before the cops reach you.
CPL holders didn’t ask the state for these laws. There was no bill supported by them asking legislators to leave locked guns in cars at schools and not enact a law that backs up citizens banning guns on thier private property. So then, who allowed this to happen? YOU ALLOWED IT, ROBIN!!!! You helped to vote for who we have in Olympia, and this is what they gave to the CPL holders. It’s impossible to be self-centered on something we have that YOU gave us without our asking. I want to personally thank you for giving me all of that, on top of being a strong supporter of my 10th Amendment rights.
You could move yourself and your family out of Washington State and into the high crime-ridden state of Illinois or Washington DC, and that would rid 100% of CPL holders from your community. But don’t be so naive in thinking that it rids you entirely of people with concealed guns. You see Robn, Billy owns the streets of Chicago and Washington DC, and he has guns on him in the school where your children will play. This is not a silly discussion, especially since you brought up the fact that you have kids and will pull off all bets to protect thier safety. Guns are everywyhere out there. You don’t see it because it’s concealed, and seeing no guns makes you feel safe. Ignorance is bliss, and you have a lot to learn. CPL holders protect themselves AND OTHERS everyday without firing shots or even speaking a word. Have you ever second guessed entering into a confrontation with a stranger because your concious told you, “but what if he has a gun?” In a CPL absent community like Chicago, the Billys don’t even have to ask themselves that question. Every 27th person you pass on the street is carrying a gun with a CPL, and several of them from persons 1 to 26 are carrying illegally without a CPL. Do you know why you and your children aren’t becoming victims of violent crime every day here in Kitsap as you would in Chicago? Because the “check valves” are those anonymous and law abiding every 27th person on the street. Anonymous because they are legally carrying a concealed firearm, and because of that, Billy has no idea who that #27 person in the group is. For all he knows, it could be anyone—inlcuding you. So, he leaves you and your children alone. I already thanked you for giving me the state rights that I have. You can thank me later.
Be safe, Robin.
October 9th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
This was a good blog in my opinion . Totally see the points of both sides. The Constitution when written was concerned about State’s rights , we know the smaller states were concerned about the bigger states telling them what to do . The Founders distrusted Government centralized power , thus the tenth Amendment . But also the same philospy that made sure there was a Tenth Amendment I believe would never have considered states to have regulated second amendment rights like they have , Kings and Dictators may unarm citizens , but the thought we would unarm ourselves for our own good was never considered .
In my opinion it seems as though the Feds are trying to undo a wrong with the way the states have regulated the second amendment , by a method of stepping on the tenth .
Either way you argue this it seems we contradicting the original Intent .
The Courts have not been clear and I believe this is a Judicial Issue . All voters have certain rights in all states that the Constitution protects . Do Gun owners have basic rights in all states . I believe they do. The Courts have never been clear. But driving through a border with a concealed weapon and instantly finding yourself in violation of a law seems basically just wrong . You as a law abiding citizen are allowed to be able to protect yourself and family with a concealed weapon , one second later you are the criminal ?
The problem when it comes down to it is I believe the left ward slant of the courts the past 50 years have made decisions that violated Original intent in many state courts and legislatures , thus making the issue a mess.
For the all the nonsense we hear about the right wing trying to force their beliefs on others I have to state they have been the most consistent in honoring the rule of law not the law of opinion and government making us obey liberal concepts for our own good.
But in this case , they way the courts see the law , I would have to say making all states accept the liscening methods of some states as being against the Tenth Amendment. I do not support violating the Constitution in order to correct another violation .
So I am on the wrong side for different reasons .
October 10th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Mike, now that was a great and educated comment. One that speaks fair with respect to our laws and the constitution instead of someone else on here who shuns our laws and constitution because it does not fit her personal self-centered opinions.
As I touched on earlier, this bill is born out of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act which was signed into law back in 2004. The LEOSA applies to law enforcement officers who are currently employed, retired, or separated after working only 10 years (and then resigning) in an LEO occupation. This law grants these classes of LEOs nation-wide conceal carry reciprocity by exempting them from state CPL requirements. Prior to the law, most states prohibited law enforcement officers to carry a firearm off-duty (Washington is NOT one because our laws already granted this to off-duty cops, and our state gun laws are very liberal compared to many other states). So when they were off-duty, they could only carry with a CPL just like every other ordinary citizen, which meant that off-duty and retired LEOs were subjected to the very same non-state reciprocity problems that citizen CPL holders are still facing today.
Since the LEOSA became law, it has been tested in nearly 3 dozen cases throughout state and Federal courts, and each time, the LEOSA prevailed. These case laws resulted in the LEOSA being amended in 2010 to grant even more rights to LEOs including expanding the definition of “LEO.” Some disciplines that you might not think of as law enforcement in the traditional sense are qualified under the LEOSA such as Lottery Commission Officers, jailers, and Coast Guard Boarding Team members. They all are exempt from CPLs nationwide.
If this reciprocity bill becomes law, it would be added to the US Code in the very same section as the LEOSA (18 USC 926).
With all that being said, as you can imagine, state rights and the 10th Amendment was an issue that was argued when our legislators debated passing the LEOSA. However, because this reciprocity bill is mirrored after LEOSA, and the LEOSA has already paved the way for it over the last 7 years, I think the 10th Amendment argument would not hold against it either.
Here is the link to the House Report which documents the legislative intent of the LEOSA. Scroll down and read pages 48 and 49 to see the argument of how and why the 10th Amendment did not trump this law. This same argument is what will defend this current reciprocity bill during it’s own legislative process. Note that the seed for this current reciprocity bill was mentioned, and planted, 7 1/2 years ago in this LEOSA debate (on page 49).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_reports&docid=f:hr560.108.pdf
October 11th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Thanks Kitsap . Hard to argue with that logic , but I bet the lawyers will . ;0)