[divegeek]

For those that haven't already seen it, a bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would provide nationwide CCW reciprocity. Basically, it says that if you can legally carry a concealed weapon in your state of residence, then you can legally carry it in any state in the union.

I think this is a fantastic bill and I urge all of you to write your congressmen and ensure that Utah's representatives (none of whom are co-sponsors) provide a united showing in favor of this bill.

Here's the e-mail I sent to my representative:

----

Congressman Bishop,

I'm writing to ask for your support of H.R. 5782. This bill, introduced on Monday, would be of great assistance to Utahns who travel outside our great state. In Utah, we enjoy the benefit of state law that makes it easy for honest, law-abiding citizens to legally carry a concealed firearm to defend ourselves and our loved ones. This state of affairs is not only good for individual and public safety but also maintains our fundamental right to keep and bear arms, a right affirmed by the second amendment to the U.S. constitution and guaranteed in Utah's own constitution. Utah law further recognizes the right of citizens of other states to carry weapons, and fully honors all concealed carry permits issued by any state or county in the United States.

Sadly, there are a number of other states that not only don't recognize this important right for their own citizens, but also do not recognize the trust that Utah places in its Concealed Firearm Permit holders. H.R. 5782 will assist Utahns by establishing formal, federally-mandated reciprocity for all states. If this bill is passed, every state will be required to honor permits issued by every other state, just as Utah law already does, ensuring that law-abiding Utahns who have undergone the training and background check required by our state are empowered to defend themselves in any state they might happen to visit. Since Utah already accepts all other permits, this bill will not affect Utah law in the slightest, but will instead ensure that all states provide the same courtesy to Utahns that Utah already provides to their citizens.

As a Utah CFP holder who travels regularly for business, I would benefit tremendously from the passage of H.R. 5782. Although I endeavor at all times to avoid areas frequented by criminals, and always do all in my power to escape dangerous situations, the ability to lawfully carry a weapon could someday make the difference between life and death, and I am deeply uncomfortable when I travel to states that deny my right to self defense.

I appreciate your past support for your constituents' second amendment rights, and expect to see you actively supporting this important bill as well. Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Shawn Willden

 

[Car Knocker]

Looks like a good bill. I think I'll join you in writing my Congresscritters.

 

[XD_EE]

I hope you don't mind that I used your letter as a template. I think you did a very good job at putting it together.

 

[roseblood]

I gotta ask this just for my own interest: Do we want the Fed regulating what the states do in this case?
I agree that something like this would be nice, much like how states recognize other's driver licenses. But I see this as another way for the fed government to impinge on state's rights.

 

[marksman]

Ok I' usually pretty good at reading legalese but this is a little more cryptic than most.

Does this grant a concealed carry permit holder to:
A. Carry in accordance with Utah state law where ever I carry?
B. Carry in any state as if I had a CFP from that state?

In other words currently in Utah I can carry on college campuses however if I go to state X where we have reciprocity. I must still follow their state laws and if they don't allow carry on college campuses then I cannot. This is like B

Or will this law have the effect of A. And if I'm from Utah I can concealed carry on college campuses in any state in the nation no matter what their laws are.

I figure it's probably more like A so I guess I'm mostly curious under this law what rights would I have in a state that doesn't offer concealed carry permits like Illinois?

 

[Cinhil]

Roseblood said, "But I see this as another way for the fed government to impinge on state's rights."

I don't believe that this would impinge upon the rights of states, more importantly it upholds the rights of citizens, country-wide, to be able to exercise their basic, God-granted right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This, of course, being a right held higher than the authority we choose to give either to sate or federal governments, as these are entities in existence by our leave. They have no rights only authorization to act in our behalf from us.

 

[Car Knocker]

marksman,

You would have to comply with the laws of the state you happen to be carrying in - exactly as you do now. If you happen to be in Wyoming, you would have to abide by Wyoming's laws as to where you can or cannot carry - not Utah's laws.

 

[roseblood]

I would be interested to see how this compares to the driver license reciprocity that currently exists between states. I can see California balking, even going so far as to file suit, at this bill. The argument against it would be the lack of accepted standard requirements for issue of a permit.

If you recall, when California announced an initiative that would give driver licenses to illegal aliens, Colorado announced they would not honor a California driver license if it passed. Could we face the same thing in this situation?

 

[hamm]

First of all, I would love this law to pass for my sake, but I do believe it infringes on states' rights. If states are forced to recognize CCW licenses from other states, then what about every other type of state-issued license (e.g. gay marriage licenses).

Another problem is that once we let the federal government start regulating concealed carry (albeit in a good way), then we give them the idea they can further regulate it. For instance, the federal government might pass a law prohibiting concealed carry at schools, hospitals etc.

 

[XD_EE]

First of all, I would love this law to pass for my sake, but I do believe it infringes on states' rights. If states are forced to recognize CCW licenses from other states, then what about every other type of state-issued license (e.g. gay marriage licenses).

Another problem is that once we let the federal government start regulating concealed carry (albeit in a good way), then we give them the idea they can further regulate it. For instance, the federal government might pass a law prohibiting concealed carry at schools, hospitals etc.

So perhaps we should rally for the laws we like and rally against the laws we don't like. Isn't this the point? How is this law any different than the current driver's license law? States still individually regulate the specific car laws...

 

[divegeek]

I would be interested to see how this compares to the driver license reciprocity that currently exists between states. I can see California balking, even going so far as to file suit, at this bill. The argument against it would be the lack of accepted standard requirements for issue of a permit.

If you recall, when California announced an initiative that would give driver licenses to illegal aliens, Colorado announced they would not honor a California driver license if it passed. Could we face the same thing in this situation?

I don't know how DL reciprocity works. It actually extends beyond the states; you can drive here with a driver's license issued by any country.

I always thought the Colorado thing was funny -- more than half of the states have no requirement of legal residency for issuing a DL, yet Colorado honors all of them.

I'm sure California would file suit, but I think they'd lose. It seems to me that the reciprocity law would be easily justifiable under Article IV, which says that states must recognize one another's acts, and that Congress has the right to decide the details of how they do this.

 

[marksman]

marksman,

You would have to comply with the laws of the state you happen to be carrying in - exactly as you do now. If you happen to be in Wyoming, you would have to abide by Wyoming's laws as to where you can or cannot carry - not Utah's laws.

So in states with no concealed carry permits you would not be permitted to concealed carry?

 

[divegeek]

So in states with no concealed carry permits you would not be permitted to concealed carry?

As I understand it, if you have a permit issued by any state, then you can carry concealed in any state. Also, if you are a resident of any state where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit, then you can carry concealed in any state. That covers residents of Vermont and Alaska, which don't require or issue permits.

In both cases, you have to comply with the laws of the state you're in regarding "specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried". I suppose a state could try to say that firearms may not be carried in any locations, but I'd think a judge would say that the clear intent of the law is to allow states to specify certain locations, not ban concealed carry everywhere.

 

[marksman]

As I understand it, if you have a permit issued by any state, then you can carry concealed in any state. Also, if you are a resident of any state where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit, then you can carry concealed in any state. That covers residents of Vermont and Alaska, which don't require or issue permits.

In both cases, you have to comply with the laws of the state you're in regarding "specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried". I suppose a state could try to say that firearms may not be carried in any locations, but I'd think a judge would say that the clear intent of the law is to allow states to specify certain locations, not ban concealed carry everywhere.

The problem is that there are states that say I may not carry concealed anywhere (Illinois). So in a state like that would I be:
1. Not allowed to carry anywhere (which as you say is against the intent of the law).
2. Be allowed to carry everywhere (except where prohibited by federal law).
3. Some other strange arrangment.

 

[Car Knocker]

That covers residents of Vermont and Alaska, which don't require or issue permits.

Actually, Alaska does issue a concealed handgun permit for those folks who wish to carry in other states.
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/Statewide/Pe ... hpfaq.aspx

 

[XD_EE]

As I understand it, if you have a permit issued by any state, then you can carry concealed in any state. Also, if you are a resident of any state where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit, then you can carry concealed in any state. That covers residents of Vermont and Alaska, which don't require or issue permits.

In both cases, you have to comply with the laws of the state you're in regarding "specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried". I suppose a state could try to say that firearms may not be carried in any locations, but I'd think a judge would say that the clear intent of the law is to allow states to specify certain locations, not ban concealed carry everywhere.

The problem is that there are states that say I may not carry concealed anywhere (Illinois). So in a state like that would I be:
1. Not allowed to carry anywhere (which as you say is against the intent of the law).
2. Be allowed to carry everywhere (except where prohibited by federal law).
3. Some other strange arrangment.

Actually, like swillden said, it would be off limits to carry in location prohibited by federal law and in locations which are SPECIFICALLY stated in the state law.

 

[divegeek]

The problem is that there are states that say I may not carry concealed anywhere (Illinois). So in a state like that would I be:
1. Not allowed to carry anywhere (which as you say is against the intent of the law).
2. Be allowed to carry everywhere (except where prohibited by federal law).
3. Some other strange arrangment.

It seems to me that option 2 would make sense, so the federal prohibitions on carry in or near a school or on federal properties would be in force, but since the state has no other specific locations where carry is restricted, anything else would be permitted.

OTOH, I'm not even a lawyer, much less a federal judge.

 

[Ruger Collector]

The problem is that there are states that say I may not carry concealed anywhere (Illinois). So in a state like that would I be:
1. Not allowed to carry anywhere (which as you say is against the intent of the law).
2. Be allowed to carry everywhere (except where prohibited by federal law).
3. Some other strange arrangment.

It seems to me that option 2 would make sense, so the federal prohibitions on carry in or near a school or on federal properties would be in force, but since the state has no other specific locations where carry is restricted, anything else would be permitted.

OTOH, I'm not even a lawyer, much less a federal judge.

There would be nothing to prevent those states from enacting "CCW laws" that restrict carrying everywhere, while continuing their policies of not issuing permits at all.

"But I see this as another way for the fed government to impinge on state's rights."

I don't believe that this would impinge upon the rights of states,

I believe that the federal government getting involved in CFP sets a dangerous precedent, especially considering the uber-liberal direction they seem to be heading in this election. The road to hades is paved with good intentions...

 

[divegeek]

There would be nothing to prevent those states from enacting "CCW laws" that restrict carrying everywhere, while continuing their policies of not issuing permits at all.

I'm not so sure about that. The fact that the bill refers to "specific types of locations" would seem to make a blanket ban unworkable. I suppose they could pass laws that specify a few types that pretty much cover everywhere, e.g. Concealed carry is specifically prohibited in retail establishments, on or within 1000 feet of any public roadway, etc.

However, they'd have to pass those laws to make that work. And if they did, well, then perhaps weed need another bill to clarify the federal law a bit more, to prevent that.

I believe that the federal government getting involved in CFP sets a dangerous precedent, especially considering the uber-liberal direction they seem to be heading in this election.

I think the success of CCW permits around the country gives the pro-gun side the ammo needed to stop federal restriction of concealed carry. I also think that momentum is on our side at the moment, especially if the DC vs Heller ruling comes the way we expect, so now is the time to push.

 

[Ruger Collector]

And if they did, well, then perhaps weed need another bill to clarify the federal law a bit more, to prevent that.

When I corresponded with Senator Hatch a half dozen or so years ago about the need for legislation like 5782 he brought up a very good point; that this power belongs to the States, not to the Federal government, and that's where it should remain... I agree with him (also with hamm & Roseblood) that we can't keep handing power over to the feds, they already have more than our founding fathers would have ever agreed to. I would love to have nationwide CFP reciprocity, but not at the price of possibly losing local influence in the protection of this fundamental right entrusted to us by our creator.

especially if the DC vs Heller ruling comes the way we expect, so now is the time to push.

If the Heller decision comes in our favor it will be the time to push, not for more legislation, but for less. Unconstitutional laws will need to be over turned. Any future regulation of ammunition will hopefully lead to a supreme court ruling that ammunition is an integral component of arms. Federal restrictions on silencers will need to be challenged, with their use many shooters wouldn't have the health problem of hearing loss and many ranges wouldn't be forced into closure by neighbors who don't like the noise. These may seem like baby steps, but they are huge hurdles and there are many more in line with them. The federal legislative branch is corrupt, their mistakes will not be corrected by more legislative (in)action, but by the use of the Judicial branch. In the upcoming administration the Judicial may be our only hope to preserve the freedoms we hold so dear, and to counter the tyranny of secular progressive socialist corruption of the other branches.