Opinion What's Wrong With Making It Easier to Carry a Gun Across State Lines?

[Dan W]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/15/whats-wrong-with-making-it-easier-to-carry-gun-in-usa/

  By John Lott 

Published November 15, 2011
FoxNews.com

Congress is expected to vote Tuesday on whether concealed carry gun licenses should be treated the same way we treat driver's licenses for cars. With 245 co-sponsors in the House, the only question is whether there are the 290 votes necessary to override President Obama's veto.

For decades, treating licenses for guns like those for cars was something that gun control advocates wanted.

In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore promised: "We require a license to drive a car in this nation in order to keep unsafe drivers off the road. As president, I will fight for a national requirement that every state issue photo licenses [for handgun buyers]. We should require a license to own a handgun so people who shouldn't have them, can't get them."   Handgun Control Inc., as well as its later incarnation as the Brady Campaign, has pushed licensing plan since the 1970s. But what would this actually mean for gun control? After all, what does a driver's license let you do?

You don't need a driver's license to drive a car on private property, merely on public roads. And once you get a license, you are allowed to drive any car on any public road anywhere in the United States. You are responsible for obeying the different traffic regulations in different states, but as long as you do, you are fine.
Currently gun laws are much more restrictive than those that apply to cars and drivers. Not only do many states regulate guns when they are on your own property, a license to carry a concealed handgun is much more restrictive regarding when you travel outside of your state.

The proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act contains two provisions: if your state issues a concealed handgun license, that permit will let you travel to other states. Of course, you also have to follow the rules in the state you visit, so for Illinois -- the single state that still bans concealed handguns -- an out-of-state license wouldn't let you carry a concealed handgun there.

Gun control advocates are now apoplectic about the possibility of the bill passing. Democratic Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York released a letter last Wednesday warning that letting people carry concealed handguns constitutes a "dangerous measure" and "harmful legislation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/15/whats-wrong-with-making-it-easier-to-carry-gun-in-usa/#ixzz1dplTbttu

[David Hineline]

The one thing that is wrong with it, is that is an example of the Federals pushing their laws onto what should be a State issue.

[DanClrk51]

The 2nd Amendment is not a state issue, therefore the Feds have every right to force the states to abide by it and allow citizens to carry firearms across state lines. Of course the Federal govt is also engaging in unconstitutional crap in regards to guns but thats an issue for another day.

[DanClrk51]

Even though the bill passed yesterday 272-154. It's still not enough votes needed to override Obama's veto (290). Plus the Senate will be difficult and there isn't even a companion bill in the Senate yet. Two Senate Republicans have already said they won't vote for it (Richard Lugar R-IN, Scott Brown R-MA) and we also know that Mark Kirk from Illinois is anti-gun so we can count him out. That means theres only 44 Republican votes in the Senate. To get the filibuster proof majority is 60 votes so we would need 16 Democrats to vote for it. Thats very unlikely. The only way this thing will become a reality is if they attach it to some important bill such as a spending bill where Obama won't bother to veto it, just like they did with the National Parks carry bill.

[CitizenClark]

The 2nd Amendment is not a state issue, therefore the Feds have every right to force the states to abide by it and allow citizens to carry firearms across state lines. Of course the Federal govt is also engaging in unconstitutional crap in regards to guns but thats an issue for another day.

The Second Amendment was not originally a "state issue" because it is an amendment to the federal constitution, designed to restrain the feds, but this doesn't mean that regulation of firearms was not a state issue. To the contrary, regulation of the carrying of firearms has historically been part of the police power that is reserved for the states.

Like other provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment only applied to the feds for much of United States history (Massachusetts had an official state religion for years, the First Amendment notwithstanding). The Heller case didn't change the fact that the Second Amendment was only a restraint on the federal government and its organs—it just clarified that the right described by the Second Amendment is an individual one.  The Mcdonald case, however, did incorporate the Second Amendment as against the states in another instance of "selective incorporation" via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Selective_versus_total_incorporation).

Besides implementing a sort of forced reciprocity, HR 822 also "would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm.  The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state.  The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety."

It makes me nervous when the feds start nosing in this sort of thing.

[DanClrk51]

The Second Amendment was not originally a "state issue" because it is an amendment to the federal constitution, designed to restrain the feds, but this doesn't mean that regulation of firearms was not a state issue. To the contrary, regulation of the carrying of firearms has historically been part of the police power that is reserved for the states.

Like other provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment only applied to the feds for almost all of United States history (Massachusetts had an official state religion for years, the First Amendment notwithstanding). The Heller case didn't change the fact that the Second Amendment was only a restraint on the federal government and its organs—it just clarified that the right described by the Second Amendment is an individual one.  The Mcdonald case, however, did incorporate the Second Amendment as against the states in another instance of "selective incorporation" via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Selective_versus_total_incorporation).

Besides implementing a sort of forced reciprocity, HR 822 also "would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm.  The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state.  The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety."

It makes me nervous when the feds start nosing in this sort of thing.

Yeah, I guess I have to admit that your analysis sounds pretty damn straight. Not sure what this will mean for the country though. It could be very bad i suppose in the future.

[CitizenClark]

Yeah, I guess I have to admit that your analysis sounds pretty damn straight. Not sure what this will mean for the country though. It could be very bad i suppose in the future.

At the end of the day, restrictions on keeping and bearing arms are violations of my natural (i.e., "God-given"; cf. "constitutional") rights, so it doesn't exactly break my heart to see the feds telling certain states that they can't continue violating people's rights in this particular way.

My concern, though, is that this is the first step on the road to nationalization of carry laws, and that does scare me. It is hard enough to defend against the wacko anti-gun types in Lincoln and Omaha without having to worry about the ones in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC.

[DanClrk51]

At the end of the day, restrictions on keeping and bearing arms are violations of my natural (i.e., "God-given"; cf. "constitutional") rights, so it doesn't exactly break my heart to see the feds telling certain states that they can't continue violating people's rights in this particular way.

My concern, though, is that this is the first step on the road to nationalization of carry laws, and that does scare me. It is hard enough to defend against the wacko anti-gun types in Lincoln and Omaha without having to worry about the ones in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC.

Agreed.

and yes that is a scary thought. I don't like the provision in the bill that was snuck in that creates a study of the carry laws because that will imply that Congress will try further "improvement" of the nation's carry laws.

[Roper]

I tend to agree with CitizenClark on this one. 

[KGillen]

While the 2nd Amendment may be a part of our Federal Constitution, so is the 10th. Regulation of any kind, perceived as good or not will lead to over regulation. I wish I could be more eloquent on the subject, but that pretty much sums up my view.

[armed and humorous]

I agree that the feds getting involved puts gun rights that we now have at risk, but what's the alternative if you want to travel throughout the United States, and you want to carry in such a manner that you could defend yourself at all times?  Yes, we could do whatever is in our power to get all the other states to pass and/or recognize concealed carry rights, but that would probably take a long time, if it ever happened.  I think our best bet is to pass some sort of federal reciprocity legislation, and to try and insure that it doesn't open the gate to more restrictive carry/ownership laws.  After all, it's a federal law that allows us to transport, albeit with restrictions, any place we want to go as long as we are legally allowed to be there with a firearm.  If it weren't for that, we might have to avoid Illinois altogether (and possibly other states if they felt the need to ban firearms and had no federal law to stop them).

[DaveB]

It's the feds that started F&F. We need to completely keep the feds out of it. If by federal approval we could carry in every state, that would equal gun control by the feds which would mean that they could take it away too. If I can't take my gun to Illinois, I just won't go there, they don't deserve my attention or money.