H.R. 861: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national CCW

[Damien45]

Here in Colorado I can legally CCW into a bar and even have a drink ... the law states that it is illegal for me to be armed and "under the influence", but doesn't say I can't sit in a bar and drink soda or have a drink with dinner.

I can understand laws against packing while drunk, but just being in a bar shouldn't be illegal any more than it should be illegal for those licensed to drive to be in a bar.

I think there is more to this then that. People who drink and drive do it under the assumption that they are fine. We all know alcohol impares judgement. So this is probably along those lines. We know it isn't smart to DUI, yet it had to be made into Law because some just don't care otherwise (and still). Imagine if only 10% of bar goers where armed, and drinking, because it was allowed. I would imagine there would be a lot more gun related incidents due to poor judgement and bad tempers.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Btw, the PA resident who posted: No. The "national standard" only applies to the states that don't issue licenses. It doesn't apply to Vermont either because Vermont allows carry without license, so there's nothing to "notwithstand".

 

[Cold_B]

I'm tired so I can't say that I read all the posts, but I was struck with an interesting idea.

If this passes then you carry under the rules from the state that issued your license right (not necessarily your home state)? What if you had two licenses, with different rules, one for you home state with tighter rules, and another state with lesser rules. Which rules would win?

Example if this passed: could I get a FL CWL and get rid of my CHL for Texas, and then start carrying under FL rules? In Texas, we are only allowed to carry handguns(No knives longer than 4.25", mace, etc). But in FL are they allowed to carry practically anything (billie, knife, electronic weapon or device)?

Would I then be able to carry a super shorty shotgun under my trench coat legally under a FL CWL?

Just thinking out loud here.

It seems like if thats the case, then we should all dump our state licenses and get a license from the state that has the best laws.

 

[Juna]

BUT, it would also open up CCW to a unified attack. Instead of attacking CCW in each state separately, the antis would be able to focus their political muscle on the federal level. And the destruction they wage would filter down to all of us.

That's exactly what I fear. I think that on the surface it sounds like a good thing, but it makes it a lot easier to fight against b/c it becomes one enemy instead of 50. That said, in theory it could make it easier to fight for in that we'd all be unified fighting for our IIA rights, but in practice I think we'd be screwed b/c the national politicians don't give a damn about us. It's only the state and local politicians who seem to give a rip b/c their seats are more easily lost.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

If Congress wants to, they can shut down CCW in any state at any time.

They can say, "We'll withhold Fed. highway funds." That's how they were able to force states on the drinking age.

They have just recently forced states to adopt ID standards by saying, if you don't use these IDs you can't fly. Could they do something similar with CCWs?

They can flat-out ban possession of handguns everywhere in the US, unless the Parker case gets upheld on appeal.

There are almost no limits on the power of Congress these days. That's the fundamental problem. But fighting against this one little bill, perhaps the only significant pro-gun bill in Congress in recent times, is the wrong way to address this problem.

 

[Cuda]

It sounds like a good idea, but more gun laws when the 2A says all thats needed seems to be a waste of time.

However with that said, why did these reps wait to offer this ammendment to a dem congress and senate, why not when the rep's had control???

C

 

[MinnMooney]

BUT, it would also open up CCW to a unified attack. Instead of attacking CCW in each state separately, the antis would be able to focus their political muscle on the federal level.

I tend to lean toward taurusowner's quote.

"It sounds like a good idea on the surface...." It would make it too easy for a surgical strike at the federal level by Democrats to wipe out what has taken many years to build on a state level.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This is written in English, it’s not hard to understand.

Then why are you having trouble? The licensing of alcohol serving establishments is a state by state affair.

In Texas there is no difference between sitting at the bar and sitting at a table in Applebees; both areas are part of the licensed premise and may serve alcohol. Now, since Texas has a different law, folks travelling HERE under the protection of this bill are OK, but what about Texans going somewhere else?

Another state with similar alcohol law would prohibit carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Unless they are run by different entities, which you see sometimes with large multi-bar/eating area places (adult food courts I call them) then the entire building is the licensed premise here.

I'm sure it's like that in some other states too.

 

[Gray Peterson]

"It sounds like a good idea on the surface...." It would make it too easy for a surgical strike at the federal level by Democrats to wipe out what has taken many years to build on a state level.

You act as if they need this bill to attack CCW on the federal level.

May I present to you S 967 from the 106th Congress. This was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg. Federal CCW system, New Jersey style. Something like that would wipe out the work we've done.

As you can see, the anti-gunners don't need this bill to attack CCW. We're doing that plenty by ourselves.

 

[Zundfolge]

Imagine if only 10% of bar goers where armed, and drinking, because it was allowed. I would imagine there would be a lot more gun related incidents due to poor judgement and bad tempers.

In my youth I hung out with a bunch of 1%er bikers ... most if not all of them were armed (illegally) and most if not all of them got seriously wasted every weekend (and many during the week) without ANY shootings.

I think our culture has become stupid about alcohol ... sure after your BAL hits .20% you're judgment is probably impaired, but most people can function perfectly well while over the foolishly low .08% legal limit.

Once upon a time in this country, a glass of scotch was part of a business meeting ... a martini or two was part of a business lunch and the world didn't come to an end.


At any rate, if it makes sense to forbid people from even CCWing in a bar, then it makes sense to forbid anyone with both a drivers license and car keys from walking into a bar.

 

[Regen]

Belt and Suspenders

It sounds like a good idea, but more gun laws when the 2A says all thats needed seems to be a waste of time.

Cuda, it is a belt and suspenders approach. The 2A may be all that is needed, having a law which explicitly states that you can carry in a state that would otherwise prohibit it just re-enforces the point.

Fighting an arrest on 2A grounds would probably take a long time. It would be much easier and quicker if we had this law.

What I still don't really understand is why the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply to permits?

 

[Damien45]

In my youth I hung out with a bunch of 1%er bikers ... most if not all of them were armed (illegally) and most if not all of them got seriously wasted every weekend (and many during the week) without ANY shootings.

I think our culture has become stupid about alcohol ... sure after your BAL hits .20% you're judgment is probably impaired, but most people can function perfectly well while over the foolishly low .08% legal limit.

Once upon a time in this country, a glass of scotch was part of a business meeting ... a martini or two was part of a business lunch and the world didn't come to an end.


At any rate, if it makes sense to forbid people from even CCWing in a bar, then it makes sense to forbid anyone with both a drivers license and car keys from walking into a bar.

The sad truth is that at some point someone stopped having faith in the individual and started trying to make decisions for everyone. Once that person got enough people to think like them, a trend happened. We lost a lot of rights and privileges due to the fears of others. The lack of standing up and taking responsibility for one's self hurt us and helped them. That is the simple basic fact. :banghead:

 

[Autolycus]

I am having a hard time understanding why gunowners are so afraid to talk about national reciprocity at least. This I can understand but ask yourself...

how many times does a law get repealed once it is on the books?

 

[gunsmith]

looks good to me

Damien, I go to bars all the time, to see music...I am a non drinker so I do not need to worry about drinking ...I just do not do it.

when you said

If this passes I wont be able to carry at bars or restruants that serve alcohol.

it reads as if you think the law would prohibit me from complying with NV law which has no problem with open or concealed....though I never see open but often see barely concealed.

I can / do go to bars while packing.
If there is no metal detector then I'm packing.