Vitter To Introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[Cavalier Knight]

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/

Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill next week.

Senator Vitter had been working closely with Gun Owners of America to draft and file a reciprocity amendment a few weeks ago, but that amendment, unfortunately, never saw the light of day -- thanks to powerful opponents inside the Senate.

However, Sen. Vitter has continued undaunted and last week sent a Dear Colleague letter to his fellow senators, asking them to cosponsor his forthcoming bill, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter's bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.

States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.

Citizens should not be forced to sacrifice their right to self-defense at the state line. The Vitter bill will allow more Americans to defend themselves away from their home state.

Action: Please urge your two Senators to become original cosponsors of the Vitter "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act." You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message

 

[George S.]

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter's bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

So how does this impact the laws of some states that require a certain level of background checks? In WA, the state law as it now stands requires that other state CCW permit holders must have gone through similar checks that WA does in order for that state's CCW to be recognized. At this point the WA Dept. of Licensing has only recognized a very few states for accepting their CCW permits.

If this bill passes (and I really don't think it will) does it effectively wipe out conflicting requirements for types and depths of background checks??

 

[markk]

This is an important one, folks.

Please, let's hit that link and send out those letters.

GOA really couldn't make it any easier, you just plug in your name and address and they automatically send out emails to the appropriate poloticians.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

This is an important one, folks.

Please, let's hit that link and send out those letters.

GOA really couldn't make it any easier, you just plug in your name and address and they automaticly send out emails to the appropriate poloticians.

DITTO!

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Better yet, send faxes (if you can) to your senators' DC and/or local offices. They carry (one hears) more weight than e-mail and aren't subject to the delays (thanks, Anthrax Guy) attendant to snail mail.

 

[markk]

Just as a side note, here is Senator Vitter's website with a contact page...http://vitter.senate.gov/

While it is clear that he is already very passionate about our 2A rights, I'd be willing to bet that he appreciates hearing from those of us who support his work. Even just a quick friendly "thank you" message can mean a lot in this day and age where such niceties are long forgotten...

 

[NovaTiger]

I'd be a bit concerned that under this scenario individual states may begin "raising the bar" for issue of concealed permits so as not to appear too easy compared to neighboring states. Virginia might fear legal action by Maryland (or DC!!!) because their carry regimes are quite different. Thus VA might tighten up, or Alaska or whoever might create licensing standards where none existed before. Individual states (and this is already an issue w/ reciprocity IMHO) also have different standards with respect to the use of deadly force. While the current system (or lack of system) is imperfect, at least there's no federal role. Where a federal role exists, it will tend to expand no matter what the bill's stated intent is... law of unintended consequences and all.

 

[markk]

I'd be a bit concerned that under this scenario individual states may begin "raising the bar" for issue of concealed permits so as not to appear too easy compared to neighboring states. Virginia might fear legal action by Maryland (or DC!!!) because their carry regimes are quite different. Thus VA might tighten up, or Alaska or whoever might create licensing standards where none existed before. Individual states (and this is already an issue w/ reciprocity IMHO) also have different standards with respect to the use of deadly force. While the current system (or lack of system) is imperfect, at least there's no federal role. Where a federal role exists, it will tend to expand no matter what the bill's stated intent is... law of unintended consequences and all.

My Florida CWL currently allows me to CC in 36 states. Has there been any attempts to "raise the bar" amongst those states for the entirely ludicrous reasons you gave. No, there has not.

The MAJORITY of the states in this country ALREADY share a standard level of qualification for CC (while sometimes differing on small details). The only states who would be forced to change their ways by this bill are the ones who continue to infringe upon our 2A rights.

 

[Zoogster]

So how does this impact the laws of some states that require a certain level of background checks?

What it means is that there will come a time shortly afterwards when a federal standard is established for the federaly recognized license once reciprocity is mandated.

What that means is states that currently have very free concealed carry laws or grant them with no questions asked to their citizens will come under the federal requirements.

This will actualy be a blow for many free states over time, though for those in restrictive states it will give more freedom than thier own states wish them to have in the short term.
Because of that I also see the ability to obtain out of state permits going away for the same reason.
Just like you could not get a drivers license from another state because it has easier tests or requirements. Some states for example let minors drive at 16 with no strings attached, some require many many hours of drivers ed or similar courses for anyone under 18. Yet people may only apply for a license in thier state of residence.
Also related is that numerous states used to have very different laws on things like thier drinking age, thier definition of DUI or open containers, whether they require helmets on motorcycles, thier speed limits etc. Many of those things have all been brought to close standards because of federal involvement.

Restrictive states will not want thier own citizens to be able to obtain permits from foriegn locations when they won't grant them to those citizens themselves. They will have to close the "CCW loophole" and it won't be long before the only place people can recieve permits is from thier own state. Those permits under this legislation would then be valid in other states, but they could only obtain them from thier own state, and restrictive states would have a large input on the requirements necessary in other states since they allow carry in all states, including thier own.

So if you really want places like CA helping to establish national requirements along with other restrictive states then this kind of a bill is the way to go.
Imagine CA senators concerned about and demanding "common sense requirements" for CCW licenses issued in places like Texas. After all, if those licenses issued in Texas are valid in California they have a valid reason to care about what the requirements are.

 

[Zoogster]

At the same time this type of bill could make CCW seen even in places it currently is not that it normalized it enough in the entire nation that you never had to worry about someone overturning it in various states.

So the problems I mentioned still stand, but in the long term it could help or hurt. Bastions of freedom would be pressured to reduce those freedoms, and restrictive places forced to recognize carry.
Bastions of freedom becoming less so could hurt us in the RKBA.

In contrast as the nation becomes more urban the perspectives could shift. Many urban areas are in fact the hotspots of antigun views. As the population grows larger and such shifts are made and most people live in more densely populated places it might ensure the ability to carry arms is viewed as commonplace since it was nationalized for a long time previously.

If America progresses to that level of population prior to it being viewed as commonplace, then it may never become common in many regions or in national government. That means it can be easier to do erode.

So it is worth a lot of thought.

 

[TAB]

It won't pass, even if it does the 10a will still trump it and it will be struck down.

Having this pass will be one of the worst things that could happen to CCWs in years.

 

[M203Sniper]

The 10th Amendment is on our side.

It states that the RKBA of individuals is reserved in the Constitution; as written a right of the people.

Congress can not override the rights of the states and has used subversive and political means to force conformity on a national level (denying federal funding, taxation, interstate commerce) they will obviously try to force conformity over individuals for political gain if we have a national CCW law of any kind. We simply can not allow some one in congress to "DO" anything, regardless of how well intentioned he seems. The RKBA is guaranteed in the US Constitution for all persons in this country and we must first have a legal recognition of this at a state level.

Forget what the anti's say and forget the media; Court cases like Heller v DC are our best shot at regaining 100% our rights. If we stay vigilant and educate our kids we can overturn the Gun Control act of 1968 and THEN get the right to carry a concealed weapon recognized on a national level.

We will never lose the background check system and there are no legs to stand on for a National Carry Law.

 

[Brass Rain]

Proud to have him as my Senator, whether this passes or not!

 

[markk]

This bill has nothing to do with a "National Carry Law", it is about across-the-board reciprocity between states which already offer concealed carry licensing of some sort.

It boggles my mind to see how much extraneous nonsense some people are willing to read into it.

 

[TAB]

Proud to have him as my Senator, whether this passes or not!

this statement is exactly why he introduced this bill... I have no doubt that some one on his staff told him that even if it were to pass it will be struck down( if not he really needs to get new staff members) he is doing this to get votes.


Markk do you know every states CC laws? Its not like having a DL where if you don't know them you get slaped with an infraction ( ticket) In many states doing something wrong in is a crime... in many states in a felony if you make a mistake.

Besides would you want some one driving in your state with an out of state DL, where all they did was pass a back ground check and pay a fee?

 

[AirForceShooter]

I'm still trying to figure out why we need this. The "full faith and credit" clause should cover this.
Why doesn't it??

AFS

 

[kevindsingleton]

<Quote>Besides would you want some one driving in your state with an out of state DL, where all they did was pass a back ground check and pay a fee? </Quote>

No! But, you don't have a God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to drive on public roads! It's not an apples-to-apples comparison!

I think everyone who has not been adjudicated a violent criminal or mentally unstable should be allowed to carry, concealed or open, anywhere in the country (except on private property, when advised of the property owner's position).

It's nothing to do with driving, and is not comparable. All concealed carry permit laws are infringements of a right that precedes the law. Driving on public roads is a privilege, and licensing (with required training or demonstrated skill) is well within the law.

 

[phorvick]

It was suggested: Having this pass will be one of the worst things that could happen to CCWs in years.

Amen. If it passed, it will be changed later to establish national standards with restrictions. This will ruin carry rights. A terrible idea.

If you do not have CCW rights in your State (IL WI) or are severely restricted (CA, HI, NY, IA etc) your remedy is to work within your State. If this passes, it would shortly turn into an abomination.

 

[lookn4varmints]

This bill has nothing to do with a "National Carry Law", it is about across-the-board reciprocity between states which already offer concealed carry licensing of some sort.

It boggles my mind to see how much extraneous nonsense some people are willing to read into it.

AMEN!!!! The bill establishes no licensing standards, and I'm not going to refuse supporting it on the basis of IT MIGHT CHANGE LATER. That's a silly notion! If we hold that attitude, we would never pass good legislation. The current bill's consequences will, however, certainly allow the residents of very restrictive states to witness the positive effects of concealed carry; i.e., crime rate reduction. I see this as a very effective method of garnering further public support for concealed carry rights in restrictive states. We should be supporting this legislation wholeheartedly.

 

[LAR-15]

CALLED

Hope this passes. My senators support this

 

[TAB]

No! But, you don't have a God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to drive on public roads! It's not an apples-to-apples comparison!
I think everyone who has not been adjudicated a violent criminal or mentally unstable should be allowed to carry, concealed or open, anywhere in the country (except on private property, when advised of the property owner's position).

It's nothing to do with driving, and is not comparable. All concealed carry permit laws are infringements of a right that precedes the law. Driving on public roads is a privilege, and licensing (with required training or demonstrated skill) is well within the law.

but it is apples to apples... carrying a concealed firearm has NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER been a right. Infact even owning a weapon has never been determined to be a right.

There are many that would argue that the phrase bare arms means "bringing weapons to bare" in a miltary since.( I'm not saying I am one) There is lots to back this up, while there is very little to back up " having a weapon on ones person at all times"

 

[markk]

You show your true colors more and more with each post.

 

[TAB]

and what colors would those be?


Here is the thing, if a national CCW law gets passed, then struck down in the courts, it will set a presadent for it to happen to every other law that gets pased.

 

[markk]

This is not a "National Carry Law", it simply states that if State A offers it's own CWL, it must recognize State B's CWL.

Much like many states (36 to be exact with my Florida CWL) already do...

 

[TAB]

then it is a national carry law... the only way to opt out is to not have CCW in that state... do you really think a law like that is going to help, further CCW "rights" nation wide?