Latest federal recognition of CCW permits bill, your thoughts?

[Firethorn]

Source

Believe it or not, I think I first heard about it on the DU.

Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

Personally, I think that it's not bad.  Of course, by the looks of it a state without a CCW permit system could still essentially ban CCW by banning carry everywhere.  For example NYC and a more or less 'No CCW in NYC' clause.

How would the courts handle the case where a person with a CCW permit carries in on of the states without a CCW system, which has a blanket ban on CCW, not specific locations?  Would those two states remain forbidden for CCW, or would it be 'anything goes' until they get their act together?

edit:Url fix.  Darn it, stop helping me!

[Manedwolf]

The simpler and less open to faulty misinterpretation the better. It's currently ridiculous for me to have to pay $100 a year just to travel safely into MA.

I do like that they finally caught onto the Dem trick of using a nice-sounding acronym!

This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008'

But this line is troublesome:

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof

[DJJ]

But this line is troublesome:

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof

I thought that was a good thing. Doesn't "notwithstanding" mean "regardless"? As in, "regardless of what any state or local law says..."

[209]

 

I guess my thought on this is does it override state rule and have the feds dictating policy to the states?

Is that law legal based on the constitution?

Constitution law scholars- please chime in.


I know when HR218 was in the works, the big argument was that it usurped state rule.  I assume that act was judged constitutional since it passed, so it would seem the one in this thread might be.

[charby]

I guess my thought on this is does it override state rule and have the feds dictating policy to the states?

Is that law legal based on the constitution?

Constitution law scholars- please chime in.

Like that has ever stopped the Feds before.

[Manedwolf]

But does it quash state's rights if it's not restricting anything, merely serving as a Full Faith and Credit Clause?

Sort of like driver's licenses.

[209]

Dude- you can't stop the feds.  They have become a power all their own.  Most people see it, but no one has come up with a way to stop it.

[Manedwolf]

If one cop makes a peep about this, H.R. 218 needs to be shoved in their faces, with a reminder of their broken promise.

[HankB]

Of course, by the looks of it a state without a CCW permit system could still essentially ban CCW by banning carry everywhere.  For example NYC and a more or less 'No CCW in NYC' clause.

NY State issues carry permits on a discretionary basis, with some counties almost being "shall issue" . . . but their permits aren't good in NYC. On the other hand, NYC does issue carry permits - former mayor John Lindsey was issued one, the late William F. Buckley was issued one . . . people with political "pull." So even NYC doesn't ban licensed carry everywhere. From my reading of the text, once this bill were passed, I'd be good to go even there.

Now Illinois . . . Chicago issues carry permits to its aldermen, but I don't know if they're regular carry permits or if they're commissioned as "special police" or something of the sort. Occupational permits are also issued, so some security guards and private investigators get to carry legally. (Not sure about bail bondsmen.)

From my reading of the text, I'd be good to go in Illinois, too.

Unless there are some places explicitly prohibited for EVERYONE except LEOs to carry (for example, the "sterile" area of an airport, or, in TX, courtrooms, bars, and most sporting events) the proposed law looks like a green light for legal licensed carry everywhere.

Which is a GOOD step in the right direction.

IF the law is enacted (IMHO, a pretty big "IF") I'm sure there will be a lot of legal opinions written . . . and if there's a gray area somewhere, I am not volunteering to be the test case.

[Firethorn]

But does it quash state's rights if it's not restricting anything, merely serving as a Full Faith and Credit Clause?

Sort of like driver's licenses.

Relevent section of the constitution.  Article 4 Section 1

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.

[Jamisjockey]

I guess my thought on this is does it override state rule and have the feds dictating policy to the states?

Is that law legal based on the constitution?

Constitution law scholars- please chime in.

Like that has ever stopped the Feds before.

Normally the feds excercise undue pressure on the states by cutting federal funding. 

[lupinus]

I like it.

If it pases I still wouldn't test it in certain anti zones such as NJ, NYC, much of Cali, etc.

We all know how well the federal protection to transport a firearm protects some.  Remember the guy who flew into (IIRC Newark) and got jailed for traveling with his firearm?

[gunsmith]

Cali is a bastion of common sense compared to NJ/NY.

[lupinus]

This is true

Which is why they got most of cali 

[Werewolf]

Catch me up...

Last time I checked Federal CCW reciprocity was not law just a bill not even out of commitee yet...

[Matthew Carberry]

Catch me up...

Last time I checked Federal CCW reciprocity was not law just a bill not even out of commitee yet...

You're caught up.  This is "what if"-ing.

[MicroBalrog]

This is unfair to the population of Vermont.

[ilbob]

But does it quash state's rights if it's not restricting anything, merely serving as a Full Faith and Credit Clause?

Sort of like driver's licenses.

Driver's licenses are not a full faith and credit issue, nor is this.

The 14th amendment does give congress the power to enforce civil rights, such as that enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

However, this doesn't change anything for anyone while in states that do not issue CC permits, since their laws ban the carrying of firearms almost everywhere, and the law accepts those restrictions.

[Tallpine]

This is unfair to the population of Vermont.

How so?  Seems to be covered under #2:

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

[Regolith]

This is unfair to the population of Vermont.

You guys should do what Alaska did, which is to legalize CCWing without a permit (which you've already done), but then keep a permit around to allow folks to skip the NICS check and for reciprocity reasons.

In either case, you'd be no more screwed over in this than you were before.  After all, as of right now you need to get an out-of-state CCW permit to carry out of state. This probably wouldn't change that.

[Matthew Carberry]

Not an issue, as Tallpine points out, the statute allows for carry under the rules of your state.  It doesn't say under the rules of a "permit".

It was intentionally written that way to include Vermont.

[209]

If one cop makes a peep about this, H.R. 218 needs to be shoved in their faces, with a reminder of their broken promise.

This shouldn't pass! 

.

.

.

.

Sorry, I had to do it.  Actually from this cop's view, this would be a great law.  It would streamline a lot of gun law issues.   Plus, since I think more law-abiding folks with guns is a good thing; it may even reduce crime a bit.

[Matthew Carberry]

Oops, I committed the sin of failure to read the whole article before posting a concern. 

[Firethorn]

Oops, I committed the sin of failure to read the whole article before posting a concern. 

Well, I had to read the thing twice.  Initially I thought that you'd be able to carry anywhere allowed in either your home state or the visiting state.

[Matthew Carberry]

Yeah, I didn't read to the part of "per the visited state's prohibited location restrictions".

That is the best of both worlds.  Vermont and Alaska carriers can permitless carry anywhere a local can.

If it ever passed, I would do so quite smugly. 

(me, to buddy I'm visiting while out and about armed)

"Can I see your permit again?"

"Wow, that's neat, wanna see mine?"

"Ohhhhh, I'm sorry, I forgot, I don't need a permit."

point and laugh while saying "neener, neener, neener"