United States & Gun Control discussion.

policemedic said:
National CCW reciprocity has existed for law enforcement since 2004. Generally, LEOs can carry anywhere in the US or its possessions. The caveat is we have to qualify annually with the weapon type we carry.

The qualification/training requirement is the only thing different between this bill and LEOSA (the individual states will determine their licensing/training requirements instead of Congress), but the concept is not new.

There is a potential here for unintended consequences to occur. We currently grant full faith and credit to driver’s licenses and marriage/divorce decrees. Same/same for vehicle registration. But what we don’t do is recognize professional licensing.

Nurses, physicians and others with professional licenses in their state still have to apply for a new one if they move. Will this new proposed law set precedent for interstate acceptance of other licenses?
Click to expand...
One is a constitutional right, one is a privilege.
 
ThunderHorse said:
One is a constitutional right, one is a privilege.
Click to expand...

You are simultaneously right and wrong.

The right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right recognized (though not granted) by the constitution. Driving is a privilege, which is what I suppose you’re referring to.

However, this bill is not about respecting or expanding your 2nd Amendment rights. Remember that, because it’s important.

The legislation allows someone who is licensed to carry a handgun—only a handgun!—in one state to receive reciprocity for his license in another state in the same manner that we respect driver’s licenses. It even goes further, by stating that a facially valid document is prima facie proof of licensure. If one lives in a state like Vermont or Alaska that does not require licensing to carry a concealed handgun, then one is also good. So far, it sounds great, right?

Except there is an easy way for a state that wishes to exclude people from this law to do so.

This federal bill is predicated on two things—possession of a valid license to carry from State A and the existence of licensing laws for concealed carry in State B (or, like VT or AK, the absence of a legal prohibition). If New Jersey wants to prevent people from Pennsylvania carrying concealed handguns in Jersey all they have to do is repeal their concealed carry law. Individual states have the right to make and enforce their own laws, and this would effectively prevent the federal bill from having any applicability in their state.

The law also does not remove many of the restrictions on concealed carry in federal law. It does not, for example, allow you to carry into the post office or an IRS building or in fact any building in which federal employees regularly work.

If this were about respecting your 2nd Amendment rights, Congress would simply pass a law saying notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, non-prohibited people possessing commonly recognized identification documents can carry concealed weapons that have been shipped in foreign or interstate commerce without the need for a state license.

But it’s not. This is about extending full faith and credit to a state-issued license. As such, it sets the groundwork for other licenses to be accepted, though it’s likely that this will require enabling legislation or a recognition by the federal judiciary that the public records referred to in Article 4 section 1 include publicly accessible professional licenses. For example, many professional licenses are public records in PA, including every level of healthcare provider.
 
Last edited:
The 2nd Amendment is all encompassing, and therefore I don't think States have any right at this juncture to regulate it. The Federal Government does.

I spent most of my life in California where if you sneeze wrong and apply for a CCW you get denied. If you don't donate to the Sherriff's campaign you get denied. If you get assaulted and state that is the reason for wanted a CCW: denied.
 
ThunderHorse said:
The 2nd Amendment is all encompassing, and therefore I don't think States have any right at this juncture to regulate it. The Federal Government does.

I spent most of my life in California where if you sneeze wrong and apply for a CCW you get denied. If you don't donate to the Sherriff's campaign you get denied. If you get assaulted and state that is the reason for wanted a CCW:denied.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
 
policemedic said:
You are simultaneously right and wrong.

The right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right recognized (though not granted) by the constitution. Driving is a privilege, which is what I suppose you’re referring to.

However, this bill is not about respecting or expanding your 2nd Amendment rights. Remember that, because it’s important.

The legislation allows someone who is licensed to carry a handgun—only a handgun!—in one state to receive reciprocity for his license in another state in the same manner that we respect driver’s licenses. It even goes further, by stating that a facially valid document is prima facie proof of licensure. If one lives in a state like Vermont or Alaska that does not require licensing to carry a concealed handgun, then one is also good. So far, it sounds great, right?

Except there is an easy way for a state that wishes to exclude people from this law to do so.

This federal bill is predicated on two things—possession of a valid license to carry from State A and the existence of licensing laws for concealed carry in State B (or, like VT or AK, the absence of a legal prohibition). If New Jersey wants to prevent people from Pennsylvania carrying concealed handguns in Jersey all they have to do is repeal their concealed carry law. Individual states have the right to make and enforce their own laws, and this would effectively prevent the federal bill from having any applicability in their state.

The law also does not remove many of the restrictions on concealed carry in federal law. It does not, for example, allow you to carry into the post office or an IRS building or in fact any building in which federal employees regularly work.

If this were about respecting your 2nd Amendment rights, Congress would simply pass a law saying notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, non-prohibited people possessing commonly recognized identification documents can carry concealed weapons that have been shipped in foreign or interstate commerce without the need for a state license.

But it’s not. This is about extending full faith and credit to a state-issued license. As such, it sets the groundwork for other licenses to be accepted, though it’s likely that this will require enabling legislation or a recognition by the federal judiciary that the public records referred to in Article 4 section 1 include publicly accessible professional licenses. For example, many professional licenses are public records in PA, including every level of healthcare provider.
Click to expand...

^I thought this was a really good post.

I'm not sure though about your concern about "State B." States and DC have tried in the past to outlaw concealed carry or the licensing of handguns, and rebuffed by either Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. (Illinois in 2012 and DC v. Heller).

It's true that states have a lot of leeway in determining their own laws, but they can't have laws that interfere with the sovereignty of the US or that unnecessarily infringe on individual liberties. Again, Jim Crow laws in the Civil Rights era.\

Universal concealed carry is a huge win for the law abiding public. Even if I had to go through the ridiculous hoops of licensing in NY, if it was good everywhere else in the US *and our territories* I'd be thrilled.
 
Marauder06 said:
^I thought this was a really good post.

I'm not sure though about your concern about "State B." States and DC have tried in the past to outlaw concealed carry or the licensing of handguns, and rebuffed by either Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. (Illinois in 2012 and DC v. Heller).

It's true that states have a lot of leeway in determining their own laws, but they can't have laws that interfere with the sovereignty of the US or that unnecessarily infringe on individual liberties. Again, Jim Crow laws in the Civil Rights era.\

Universal concealed carry is a huge win for the law abiding public. Even if I had to go through the ridiculous hoops of licensing in NY, if it was good everywhere else in the US *and our territories* I'd be thrilled.
Click to expand...

You’re right, but keep this in mind. The Supreme Court has never resolved the issue of bearing arms outside the home. They may in the future, as the federal judiciary is divided on the issue and clarity is needed.
 
It wasn't that long ago that LE couldn't legally carry in other states off duty....there was a lot of professional courtesy, but you couldn't always count on it. This is a step in the right direction and will set ground work for national carry to expand.....but it will take some time.
 
I have absolutely no problem with anyone carrying concealed weapons any where until it's proven that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I don't fear the thought of people being armed. I have always lived my adult life as if everyone is anyway.

There are still plenty LEO's who don't fear an armed populace. The press does a good job at portraying those that do. Many believe what they are told to believe versus what they truly do. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of LEO's who don't fully understand their own state's open carry laws and have to be schooled on those alone.
 
Last edited:
policemedic said:
People are quite shocked when I recommend they get a gun, training to use it, and a license to carry it. It’s funny to watch.

Much to the resistance to this comes from politically appointed chiefs and not the rank and file.
Click to expand...

That is funny.

In addition to that group of people who train very often and take shooting courses.
 
Marauder06 said:
Local LEOs recommend people get guns
Click to expand...
The link name is a little misleading. The article is about the Sheriff. I know I've sung this song here before but an encore seems in order.
Sheriffs have more power than most people realize. They are usually the ones who come out publicly to say the people who have carry permits should carry. Why? Because like Andy Griffith, they CAN and DO deputize people in emergencies.
Legal grounds are founded in...
  1. The 10th Amendment
  2. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
  3. ETA: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES, (1997) et al.
Modern Example: The Pitkin County, CO, Sheriff in 1977 called on armed citizens to form a posse to capture escaped serial killer Ted Bundy.
 
Dame said:
The link name is a little misleading. The article is about the Sheriff. I know I've sung this song here before but an encore seems in order.
Sheriffs have more power than most people realize. They are usually the ones who come out publicly to say the people who have carry permits should carry. Why? Because like Andy Griffith, they CAN and DO deputize people in emergencies.
Legal grounds are founded in...
  1. The 10th Amendment
  2. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Modern Example: The Pitkin County, CO, Sheriff in 1977 called on armed citizens to form a posse to capture escaped serial killer Ted Bundy.
Click to expand...

It’s also true that sheriffs are elected. They are free to express whatever opinion they like without fear of being fired. They only risk political capital, but usually know the electorate well enough that this isn’t an issue.
 
Kraut783 said:
...Chiefs and Sheriffs ...
Click to expand...

Those titles could be interchanged with "Politicians."

There comes a time in LE that one has decide whether to take the road whereby you remain a career LEO or you take the road that leads you down the political avenue. It's a choice! Those political hack leaders are simply that...hacks of their governments. They should be recognized as such and nothing more. LEO's they are not!
 
Agoge said:
I have absolutely no problem with anyone carrying concealed weapons any where until it's proven that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I don't fear the thought of people being armed. I have always lived my adult life as if everyone is anyway.

There are still plenty LEO's who don't fear an armed populace. The press does a good job at portraying those that do. Many believe what they are told to believe versus what they truly do. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of LEO's who don't fully understand their own state's open carry laws and have to be schooled on those alone.
Click to expand...

Good policy.

My situational awareness tends to drift into complacency sometimes. I have to admonish myself when I snap out of it.
 

Similar threads

Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
381
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Marauder06
1911 Questions--Barrel and Slide Swap
Replies
14
Views
773
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
569
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Dame
F Around and Find Out
Replies
2
Views
477
Chopstick
Chopstick
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
90
RackMaster
RackMaster
Back
Top