Defensive Carry banner

New CC Bill in Senate

2K views 29 replies 20 participants last post by  paramedic70002 
#1 ·
I heared recently that a new Bill was introduced in the Senate. I belive by a Senator in Va. Anyway the gist of the bill in to make CC permits like DL's, good in all states. Sounds great to me and if it is true we all need to contact our senators and tell them to support this Bill. Anyone heard of this, maybe someone Virgina. Im looking into it myself. I will post anything I find out.
 
#2 ·
Haven't heard anything about this but I like the idea...as long as it's a "Full faith and credit" type situation (like DL's) and NOT a federally administered CC license. I personally don't like the idea of a national concealed carry license simply because I think the federal government has too much power as it is (not to mention the fact that the thought of the ATF or FBI running such a program makes my blood run cold).
 
#8 ·
#10 ·
Yes it indeed would be nice if it were to happen. In one of the other forums here, folks have been showing their permits, and I started wondering, why do we have so many different types of permits?? I mean it is nice that each state is different, but you would think that they would come up with something simular. Hoefully we all can contact our senators and urge them to side with this senator and get this passed...
 
#12 ·
Contact Your Senators and Representative!

The companion bill in the House is H. R. 4547:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04547:

I noted with some concern that the last action on the House version was 16 February 2006, so I sent an email to Mr. Gordon (one of the co-sponsors in the House and my Represenative), the text of which follows:

"Representative Gordon, I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship and support of H. R. 4547, the bill to create a National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity law. I have noted with some concern on “Thomas,” however, that the last major action indicated for this bill was its referral to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 16 February 2006. Has any further action occurred on this bill?

I sincerely believe that concealed carry by law-abiding citizens increases the safety of all Americans, since it reduces the level of confidence with which criminal predators may approach their intended victims. Anecdotal accounts from criminals in prison indicate that they are far more deterred from crime by fear of encountering an armed citizen than they are by fear of encountering law enforcement officers. States which, unlike Tennessee, do not recognize the right of the law-abiding to carry means for self-defense essentially disarm potential victims for criminals and make their criminal activities easier.

Once again, I thank you for your co-sponsorship and support of this important legislation and respectfully request that you continue to do all in your power to make H. R. 4547 and its companion bill, S.3275, the law of the land. Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of Tennesseans and all Americans!"

I sent similar notes to Senators Alexander and Frist asking them to co-sponsor and support the Senate version and noted who the current twelve co-sponsors are (I think it helps to let members of Congress know that one knows how to track their votes). I also sent a note to Senator Allen thanking him for his sponsorship of this legislation:

"Senator Allen, I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your authorship of S.3275. I shall be contacting Senators Alexander and Frist to encourage them to co-sponsor this important legislation. As a former resident of Staunton (where both of my sons were born), I maintain an active interest in the affairs of Virginia, and I am very pleased to note that a Virginian is leading the way on this national issue.

Again, thank you for your efforts to safeguard all Americans!"

Please send your thoughts to your members of Congress. November approaches!!
 
#13 ·
rstickle...

You are correct that states rights will indeed be a problem...I'm not much more hopeful than you are, but perhaps "full faith and credit" can be argued successfully....
 
#14 ·
Senate Bill Text - FYI all

S 3275 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3275

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.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 26, 2006

Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BURR, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

`(a) Definition- In this section, the term `another State' means a State other than the State from which a person holds a license or permit described in subsection (b)(2).

`(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and subject to subsection (c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--

`(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and

`(2) is carrying a valid license or permit that--

`(A) is issued by a State; and

`(B) permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device).

`(c) Licensing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section--

`(A) in a police station;

`(B) in a public detention facility;

`(C) in a courthouse;

`(D) in a public polling place;

`(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body;

`(F) in a school;

`(G) at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms;

`(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; or

`(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.'.

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

`926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.

enjoy:congrats:
 
#16 ·
I smile broadly as I envision handing my driver's license and carry permit to the Maryland state trooper at the next sobriety "blockade" they put up, as I pass through their fine state from north-central WV to the eastern panhandle of WV.

:danceban:
 
#18 ·
I can't get behind this.

It would be a federal law overriding a states right to self govern.
States that do not have CCW laws would under this bill be forced to adopt CCW laws with the as stated constraints, which some states with CCW laws already apply in part or full.

If this were to make the CCW license of one state honored by another which also supports CCW then that would make a lot of sense.
This though is not that and would in a real way override the peoples individual right to govern their own intrastate affairs.

- Janq
 
#19 ·
Janq...

I understand your reluctance to intrude into a state's right to govern affairs that are properly theirs under the U.S. Constitution...goodness only knows there is far too little respect for (true) federalism, state authority, and limited national government these days. However, I think the argument for this legislation can be made upon the basis that those states which deny their citizens the right to carry are unconstitutionally violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [in this case, those recognized in the Second Amendment]), which makes this a proper sphere for the application of national authority. At least, that is the way I can justify my support for this bill despite my ordinarily strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. I certainly do, however, understand your concern.
 
#20 ·
Could be Win/Lose

If we went to a standarized permit system, would all states assume the same "off limits" areas? I for one would not want to give up the sensible and gunfriendly Colorado laws to a "Happy Medium" arrangement, just to make all the states the same. I would rather have a wallet full of permits and know the laws of each state.
:hand1:
 
#21 · (Edited)
I just don't see how this can be constitutionally justified.

The attempt to put a commerce clause "jurisdictional element" in it by adding:

(c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--
is no more valid in my opinion than the way feds regulate how much water your toilet can use under the same theory.

The arguements that this is a federal matter because of the 2nd Amendment don't hold because the 2nd Amendment functions solely as a LIMITATION on the federal power, not as any grant of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the 2nd has never, ever applied to the states. In fact, none of the BoR applied to the states until the SCOTUS came up with the cockeyed notion of "incorporation" via the 14th Amendment during the 20th century.

In regard to the suggestion that it be done through forcing the states to pass the law themselves through a grant witholding mechanism, I can't see how that is constitutional unless you accept the theory that the limitations upon the federal tax power found in the tax clause of Article I actually function as a grant of a "spending power" to the federal government.

As to a "priviledges and immunities" arguement, I can't see it working except insofar as that states won't grant permits to non-residents. However, once again, the P and I clause is a limitation, not a grant of federal legislative authority. Furthermore, this bill goes far beyond merely requiring the non-res permits be granted.

I love the idea, and a twisted part of me hopes it passes simply because if we have to put up with all the federal abuse, it wouldn't hurt to have it directed in a somewhat constructive fashion. However, the end cannot justify a means which does violence to the constitution and I can't say that I can support this bill and still claim to strictly adhere to the constitution.

All the best,


Joe
 
#22 ·
Joe, if I understand your argument correctly, I agree that the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" by the SCOTUS. However, I would submit that the language of the Fourteenth ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....") does incorporate the Second whether the SCOTUS has recognized it or not. Otherwise, how can one say the right truly exists?

If I do have the right to bear a firearm to defend myself as an American citizen, then neither New York, Illinois, or any other state can legislate that right away...and any attempt to do so is null, void, and no law. (I realize I am not really talking the law here, which one should never confuse with justice; I'm talking political philosophy.) The Bill of Rights grants no rights, it recognizes those that already exist and pledges the national government to respect them. I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment extended that requirement to the states as well as a matter of political philosophy. Unfortunately, as a matter of law, it has not. But that does not make SCOTUS' interpretation in this matter just, or even correct.

If Congress cannot, however, act under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments to restore a right to citizens, the right doesn't exist. I'm afraid your argument keeps us in the place we are now, where each state can, on its own, decide whether what I believe to be a fundamental human right of all free persons pertains to their citizens or not--i.e., it really isn't a right, it's a privilege. With that notion, I must respectfully disagree.
 
#24 ·
Ramoan...

I think as currently worded the Senate bill would actually require all states to recognize:

"`(c) Licensing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section--

`(A) in a police station;

`(B) in a public detention facility;

`(C) in a courthouse;

`(D) in a public polling place;

`(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body;

`(F) in a school;

`(G) at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms;

`(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; or

`(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.'
[emphasis added]"

I'm ashamed to admit I haven't read the House bill lately, but I think this would actually create a national standard for CCW under one's current state permit, without the creation of a national license.
 
#25 ·
falcon1 said:
Joe, if I understand your argument correctly, I agree that the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" by the SCOTUS. However, I would submit that the language of the Fourteenth ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....") does incorporate the Second whether the SCOTUS has recognized it or not. Otherwise, how can one say the right truly exists?

If I do have the right to bear a firearm to defend myself as an American citizen, then neither New York, Illinois, or any other state can legislate that right away...and any attempt to do so is null, void, and no law. (I realize I am not really talking the law here, which one should never confuse with justice; I'm talking political philosophy.) The Bill of Rights grants no rights, it recognizes those that already exist and pledges the national government to respect them. I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment extended that requirement to the states as well as a matter of political philosophy. Unfortunately, as a matter of law, it has not. But that does not make SCOTUS' interpretation in this matter just, or even correct.

If Congress cannot, however, act under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments to restore a right to citizens, the right doesn't exist. I'm afraid your argument keeps us in the place we are now, where each state can, on its own, decide whether what I believe to be a fundamental human right of all free persons pertains to their citizens or not--i.e., it really isn't a right, it's a privilege. With that notion, I must respectfully disagree.
Firstly, let me compliment you on a well though out position. However, there is a fundamental distinction here which I believe we need to make. That distinction is between the grants of power found in the constitution, and the explicit limitations placed upon that power found in the constitution.

In regard to Congress, its powers are enumerated in Article I, Sec. 8.
Article I, Sec. 9 is a list of limitations on these powers of congress. Art. I, Sec. 10 is a list of limitations upon the states's powers.

The BoR is a list of limitations upon Federal Authority. It provides things which no branch of the federal power may abridge. However, as is evident if you read the preamble to the BoR, it was strictly a federal limitation, not a state limitation.

Either way, both the BoR and the limitations of Art I, Secs. 9-10, are self executing. They are law and are to be applied as such by the judiciary. What they are NOT, is some sort of grant of federal legislative authority to protect these things. There is no need for legislation to execute these provisions because they are already law. It is the task of the executive to execute these provisions, and of the judiciary to apply them. IT IS NOT THE TASK NOR THE PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO TRY TO EFFECT THESE LAWS BECAUSE CONGRESS LACKS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND COMPETENCE.

I believe that we agree that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers of Art. I, Sec 8. Within these enumerated powers, there is no power to attempt to effectuate incorporation of the BoR through the 14th Am. It simply is not there.

Ultimately, what I am trying to get at is that the limitations placed upon the federal and state governments do not imply nor include any grant of federal legislative power. They are limitations upon power, not grants of more federal power. No one argues that the limitations upon state power listed in Art. I, Sec. 9 somehow grant Congress an enforcement power. Rather, they are enforced by the executive and applied by the judiciary.

As a matter of political philosophy, I agree that there is a fundamental right of self-defense which cannot be abrogated by the government. However, I am violently opposed to using this arguement to grant Congress extra-constitutional authority over the states. I am much happier leaving these things as local issues. Consider that congress passed the GCA of 1934, the NFA, GCA 1968 and various other radically unconstitutional and philosophically illicit measures. They are the last bunch of crooks I want to grant some extraconstitutional power to effectuate the execution/application of the laws.

The problem here really comes down to the federal judiciary's failure to apply the 2nd Amendment and the state judiciary's failures to apply the RTKBA provisions of their own constitutions. Giving Congress more power is a sure recipie for disaster, no matter how sweet the present plum looks.

All the best,


Joe
 
#26 ·
"The problem here really comes down to the federal judiciary's failure to apply the 2nd Amendment and the state judiciary's failures to apply the RTKBA provisions of their own constitutions."

Total agreement with the above...this is indeed the root cause of the problem.

Thanks for your well-reasoned comments as well!

Jim
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top