Looking for answers

[Glassunion]

I occasionally try and find answers to questions that sometimes just seem nag away at me. Most of the time I cannot find an answer that I can agree with. Usually I end up with more questions than I started with. Perhaps it is due to my addiction to websites such as this one.

I was pondering a bill (H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009). This bill is similar to one from last year that has been reintroduced after missed being passed by 2 votes. A quick summary of the bill: “To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.” Meaning if you have a “Resident License” to carry a concealed firearm in your home state, that you would be able to conceal carry in other states that allow for concealed carry (all but 2).

I have several questions on this that I just can’t seem to answer and hopefully we could get some good discussion going.

First question (and biggest issue that I have on this bill): Does this bill infringe on state’s rights? I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and just as I strongly support the 2nd amendment, I also strongly support the 10th. Would this bill force states to accept individuals from other states carrying firearms in their respective states? For example NJ is far stricter on who can obtain a permit as opposed the neighboring state of PA.  NJ is may-issue where PA is shall-issue and the requirements are far different between the two.

Second Question: Would the 14th amendment negate my first question? If no state can infringe on my privileges and immunities, would not this bill be almost recognized in that the right to carry is a federal issue not a state issue? I think the problem lies in the fact that not all states equally recognize the 2nd amendment and its intent when written.

Third question: Am I thinking too deeply into this and could it just as simply be equated to driver’s licenses? All 50 states recognize each other’s driver licenses? We can drive across the states and not have to worry if our license is good or not in a state that we are visiting. And just like driving, we do have to abide by the laws of the sate that we are visiting. And just like PA and NJ, there are some states that seem to just pass out driver licenses, while others are more difficult to obtain.

Don’t get me wrong. If this bill passes, I will carry, everywhere. I just have trouble with some of the ramifications of stepping on the toes of the rights of the states. It just seems another check and balance would get squashed. 

[dmallind]

1. IANAL but an opinion follows

1) Possibly. It depends on the standards chosen. Vermont for example has no requirements for a carry permit so if any and all states had to allow either JUST VT residents to carry in their state without a permit, or more controversially ANY reisdent to carry because all of us pass VT requirements by default, it would definitely infringe on their ability to limit carry. The former IMO is more likely than the latter, although I suspect what we would really get is a default minimum standard = national carry. Which brings us neatly to.....

2) Yes it would, and I agree. I suspect if any form of this bill passes it will be on 14A grounds and will only be even vaguely acceptable if it comes with minimum licensing requirements. IOTW no Vermont for all. Or even no carry everywhere for VT residents without extra licensing requirements.

3) Nope it's a useful analogy. All licenses work everywhere, and states differ on how rigorous tests are (heck de facto so do towns!). However unless I am much mistaken all states have some test of ability and knowledge to eb able to drive. If they all did for CCW, a reciprocity bill would be easier to pass. So take something like MN as a middle of the road example and craft a compromise on the fringes and voila - national carry.

[X_Digger]

4. VT & Alaska do have licenses, if you want one..

.. and they do have similarities to other states' requirements, hence reciprocity. It's just that VT & AL don't _require_ a license to concealed carry. Obviously, if a resident of VT wanted to carry out of state, they'd need to get a license from a state _somewhere_.

I can see a side effect of national reciprocity being a huge boost in licensure in states with simple / cheap processes that allow out of state licensees (like many in Texas have a Utah non-resident permit.* eta: Not because a person couldn't qualify for a TX license, but a UT permit gets 3 or 4 more states of reciprocity.)

[Glassunion]

6. As I read it..

The bill would not cover out of state "non-resident" permits. So if you live in AZ and have a UT permit, you would not be covered under the bill. You would need to obtain an AZ permit.

Edit:
I just re-read it. Now I am not certain if it covers non-resident permits or not.

[X_Digger]

7. I know, not very clear to me, either. n/t

[Big Al Mac]

12. VT does not have ANY kind of gun license or permit system at all.

Except, of course, hunting licenses.
Vermont allows any law abiding citizen of the US to carry open or concealed.

[X_Digger]

2. "Privileges and Immunities" has been neutered by Slaughter-house

If Slaughter-house gets revisited, then yes, I'd say the 14th amendment's provisions would mean that NJ will be forced to allow out-of-state carriers from PA, TX, etc.

If Slaughter-house does not get revisited, then the neutering of the 14th will continue.

Realistically, we'll eventually get to a more uniform standard as states work out reciprocity. (I see this happening similar to how driver's license standards normalized with the 'Driver License Compact' in the '60's / '70's.) There was no constitutional challenge to licenses using the 14th amendment, it was compomise / normalization over time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. It seems to me that it would mean you can carry in any state as if

you were issued a carry for that state - if your issuing state has loose standards, you would still need to meet the tighter standards of the state you are visiting before you could legally carry.

Equivalency would be, if your state issues drivers licenses to 16 year olds, your sixteen year old driver cannot legally drive in a state where the age limit is 17. You could, however, drive in any state where the age limit is 16 or under.

It would be incumbent upon the CC holder to know the issuing standards for the state he is visiting before he carries in that state. Perhaps the CC licenses should have printed on them the qualifying criteria, i.e. age, criminal record, mental health qualifications, etc. Carry the pistol in a holster on one side, and the permit book in a holster on the other.

[X_Digger]

5. There is a parallel with driver's licenses..

.. traffic laws are different in different states vs where one can carry is different in different states.

As late as the 70's there were still problems with driver's license reciprocity. If I recall correctly, it was NYC or NY state that didn't honor some states licenses where kids as young as 16 could get regular driver's licenses.

In that same vein, compare different state laws regarding things like mud flaps, window tint, and safety inspections.

The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act cleared up some of these inconsistencies regarding guns. Transport through a state is allowed, provided certain minimum requirements are met. If I'm driving from NC to WV, I shouldn't have to take my pistol out of it's locked case in one state (where it must be concealed) as I cross a state line and place it on the dash so that it's visible (concealed is not allowed) etc.

[virginia mountainman]

8. That is basically correct...

You said issuing standards, it is not the issuing standards, it is the other states gun laws, that must be followed. for example..

I am a Virginia resadent...

When I travel to North Carolina, I must be careful not to go to any place that charges admission. CCW is not allowed in those places...But that is perfectly legal in Virginia..

When I travel to West Virginia, I CAN, go out to eat in a place that serves alcohol, as long as I don't drink, it is perfectly legal, But when I am in my home state of Virginia, it is illegal for me to carry a concealed weapon into that place under almost any circumstances.

To have a CCW, or in Virginia parlance, a CHP, you do need to be an expert on gun laws.

[Glassunion]

9. Yep.

I'm sure if passed there will be an influx of websites and little flip cards that you can buy at your local gun shop that have plain language rules and regulations of the laws in the state.

[X_Digger]

10. Well, sites have already sprung up..

http://www.handgunlaw.us comes to mind first. Most folks I know with CCW/CHL/CWP actually study the legality before they take a trip. Heck, there's even a trip planner out there somewhere that lets you see what the laws are on your route.

http://www.carryconcealed.net/packngo

[TPaine7]

11. The Fourteenth Amendment means that no state may violate the Second Amendment

However, at the Founding the right to arms was not understood to encompass a right to carry concealed arms; concealed arms were frowned upon as a preferred weapon of assassins and other criminals.

Things have obviously changed.

As I understand it, then, states may not forbid the carrying of arms in their boundaries but they may (at least debatably) forbid the carrying of concealed arms. This makes concealed carry permits presumptively constitutional.

Now the states have abused their citizens for decades. When you add to this the fact that Congress is empowered by the Constitution to provide for full faith and credit between states, that Congress may impose rules beyond the Constitution to undo previous harm due to long-term abuse, and the fact that societal norms have changed and permitted concealed carry is not the domain of criminals I think you can make a strong case that Congress can force the states to accept country-wide reciprocity and even force each state to allow concealed carry for its own citizens.

This would not rest entirely on the Constitution, but would have at least one foot resting on the need to correct a long and determined history of infringement and perhaps on a few "penumbras" and "emanations" due to changing societal norms.