House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Titan]

Maybe they will finally work this out and get it right! The current situation is a joke.

And, just to clarify my position... I think every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun if they want to.


House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/house-weighs-bill-to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/?test=latestnews

[Momz]

REPROCITY
I can't take my gun into Illinios.
How many of us would want to go to Chicago's south side or Cicero unarmed?

[Momz]

Of course Detroit isn't a Slice-O-Heaven either.

[fiddle mike]

Are you sure you want the Feds involved in carry permits?

[PAVALKER]

Are you sure you want the Feds involved in carry permits?

I don't have a carry permit..... in PA I can open carry on my side without a stinking permit.  However, I do have a Concealed Carry License, and it, just like my driver's license, should be honored in the various states I may drive thru.

[Gear Jammer]

Are you sure you want the Feds involved in carry permits?

I don't have a carry permit..... in PA I can open carry on my side without a stinking permit.  However, I do have a Concealed Carry License, and it, just like my driver's license, should be honored in the various states I may drive thru.

I agree 100%.   And the Fed govt should only mandate that all states must honor any other states CHL, nothing more.

[fudgie]

Yea I'm not sold on this yet. I wonder if they will make everyone get permits/lisc. Like PA Valker said, he can open carry without. I can do the same in Ohio, but not CC. Start messing with common law and it may hurt us then help us. Remember you can 'transport' a gun through every State.

I do my damdest not to visit a no gun/ mandatory helmet State. Will opt a helmet State if I can carry. 

[OP2]

Indiana honors Ohio's CCW, but not the other way around. At least the last I heard, these laws change all the time.

[The Anvil]

I find this curious. First of all I support full reciprocity. I love the fact that I can carry a gun in Miami with my NH permit.

But an old bastion of conservative values is state's rights. Isn't this a bit of an intrusion on the rights of states to govern as they see fit?

Personally I think state's rights are overrated anyway. I think a Federal system of permit issuance should just replace the state issuing system. And if you all escared thinking about the Fed involved in it then look at it this way; the state of Massachusetts can refuse you a permit for any reason or no reason, it's all up to the local chief and if he's anti-2nd amendment then get a lawyer and be prepared to pay. That ain't right. States are no great shakes when it comes to this kind of thing. I'll take a centralized Federal system anyday over the feudal crap we have now.

[fudgie]

I find this curious. First of all I support full reciprocity. I love the fact that I can carry a gun in Miami with my NH permit.

But an old bastion of conservative values is state's rights. Isn't this a bit of an intrusion on the rights of states to govern as they see fit?

Personally I think state's rights are overrated anyway. I think a Federal system of permit issuance should just replace the state issuing system. And if you all escared thinking about the Fed involved in it then look at it this way; the state of Massachusetts can refuse you a permit for any reason or no reason, it's all up to the local chief and if he's anti-2nd amendment then get a lawyer and be prepared to pay. That ain't right. States are no great shakes when it comes to this kind of thing. I'll take a centralized Federal system anyday over the feudal crap we have now.

Thats why alot of States are 'shall issue' States.

I thought State Law trumped fed law anyway.

[Chrisj CMA]

Im with Ted Nugent on this one.  Quote"The second ammendment is my concealed carry permit, PERIOD!"  Thats all that needs to be said.  If there are any other rules beyond that then thats too much government involvement.

[fudgie]

Indiana honors Ohio's CCW, but not the other way around. At least the last I heard, these laws change all the time.

You are correct. But I can open carry in Ohio without a lisc. I got my Utah NR so I can carry conceled in Ohio. Seems f-up'ed.

[The Anvil]

I thought State Law trumped fed law anyway.

It's the other way around actually.

But NH is a will issue state. It's actually one of the reasons why I settled here.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

REPROCITY
I can't take my gun into Illinios.
How many of us would want to go to Chicago's south side or Cicero unarmed?

I hope it passes. Won't be in time for me though. I've got to go to the Chicago area (Itasca) for a short tech class at the end of this week. But, at least I'll be on two wheels going back and forth.

[YoungPUP]

The messed up thing is that indiana does not allow CC but any cop will tell you to do it to avoid trouble from the fine Americans.

[vanagon40]

The messed up thing is that indiana does not allow CC . . . .

Indiana DOES allow concealed carry or open carry, but only with a permit.  Permits are mandatory issue unless the applicant has a disqualifier.  Without a permit, you cannot carry a handgun, PERIOD.  (Although you may transport a handgun in a vehicle if it is (A) unloaded; (B) not readily accessible; and (C) secured in a case.  Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(b)(3) and (4).)

Indiana recognizes Ohio's permits because Indiana recognizes EVERY States' permits.  Ohio does NOT recognize Indiana's license because Indiana has no training or educational requirement to obtain a license.
 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

The messed up thing is that indiana does not allow CC . . . .

Indiana DOES allow concealed carry or open carry, but only with a permit.  Permits are mandatory issue unless the applicant has a disqualifier.  Without a permit, you cannot carry a handgun, PERIOD.  (Although you may transport a handgun in a vehicle if it is (A) unloaded; (B) not readily accessible; and (C) secured in a case.  Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(b)(3) and (4).)

Indiana recognizes Ohio's permits because Indiana recognizes EVERY States' permits.  Ohio does NOT recognize Indiana's license because Indiana has no training or educational requirement to obtain a license.
 

Exactly!

Also, Indiana offers a lifetime permit for somewhere around $150, I don't remember the exact amount but that's in the ballpark. It would be a good time to go ahead and get one too. That price can't last forever.

[vanagon40]

With regard to the original topic, I have mixed emotions regarding the proposed legislation.

As a general rule, I am opposed to legislation by the federal government that has the effect of restricting the states' rights.  However, with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, I believe the federal government has already properly restricted the states' ability to impair this right through the Constitution (and Bill of Rights).  That said, I believe enforcement of the Second Amendment rather than an Act of Congress is the appropriate way enforce the the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[Psychotic Bovine]

States have all the power not expressly put forth by the Constitution.  With that being said, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and as affirmed by the two Supreme Court decisions against DC and Chicago, cannot be nullified by city or state legislation.
But, I do see why people would not want the gov't involved in granting us the ability to carry state to state.  So, to me, the solution is simple:  No permits needed to carry concealed or unconcealed as granted by the 2nd Amendment anywhere. Any mayor, or governor who makes legislation against carrying in their locale should be put in jail for violation of civil rights.  No cities or states can make laws against freedom of the press, freedom from self incrimination, and the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, so be it with freedom of defense.

I am Psychotic Bovine, and I stand by this message.

[RoadKill]

States have all the power not expressly put forth by the Constitution.  With that being said, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and as affirmed by the two Supreme Court decisions against DC and Chicago, cannot be nullified by city or state legislation.
But, I do see why people would not want the gov't involved in granting us the ability to carry state to state.  So, to me, the solution is simple:  No permits needed to carry concealed or unconcealed as granted by the 2nd Amendment anywhere. Any mayor, or governor who makes legislation against carrying in their locale should be put in jail for violation of civil rights.  No cities or states can make laws against freedom of the press, freedom from self incrimination, and the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, so be it with freedom of defense.

I am Psychotic Bovine, and I stand by this message.

And I stand with him !   

[RTaz]

  the Michigan coalition for responsible gun owners have been fighting for this for a long time...

[aamcotrans]

Yea I'm not sold on this yet. I wonder if they will make everyone get permits/lisc. Like PA Valker said, he can open carry without. I can do the same in Ohio, but not CC. Start messing with common law and it may hurt us then help us. Remember you can 'transport' a gun through every State.

I do my damdest not to visit a no gun/ mandatory helmet State. Will opt a helmet State if I can carry. 

You cannot transport a gun through any state! Take a pistol through New York or New Jersey and they will put you away for 5 years.

[Disco]

I'm with ChrisJ, Psychotic Bovine, and the Motor City Mad Man on this one.

[fudgie]

Yea I'm not sold on this yet. I wonder if they will make everyone get permits/lisc. Like PA Valker said, he can open carry without. I can do the same in Ohio, but not CC. Start messing with common law and it may hurt us then help us. Remember you can 'transport' a gun through every State.

I do my damdest not to visit a no gun/ mandatory helmet State. Will opt a helmet State if I can carry. 

You cannot transport a gun through any state! Take a pistol through New York or New Jersey and they will put you away for 5 years.

Through the Firearm Owners Protection Act you can. Just needs to be unloaded and mag & gun in separate compartments out of reach of the occupants. Has what you said happened? It has but it shouldnt. But then look what States your talking about. 

[sugerbear]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

[vanagon40]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

Then I do not suppose you would have a problem if the federal government stated that all houses, homes, apartments, etc., were subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer unless you purchased a "NO SEARCH" permit and were able to immediately produce the permit every time the police knocked on your door demanding to search your house.  Also, some people would be disqualified from purchasing the permit and always subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer if the person had legal problems in the past (e.g., a 30 year old misdemeanor conviction).

Seems to me we should not have to obtain a permit from the federal government to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[The Anvil]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

Then I do not suppose you would have a problem if the federal government stated that all houses, homes, apartments, etc., were subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer unless you purchased a "NO SEARCH" permit and were able to immediately produce the permit every time the police knocked on your door demanding to search your house.  Also, some people would be disqualified from purchasing the permit and always subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer if the person had legal problems in the past (e.g., a 30 year old misdemeanor conviction).

Seems to me we should not have to obtain a permit from the federal government to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

This is how these things get out of hand and why no progress is ever made; because people throw out whackadoo "what-ifs" and waste time on that while the meaningful legislation languishes.

[sugerbear]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

Then I do not suppose you would have a problem if the federal government stated that all houses, homes, apartments, etc., were subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer unless you purchased a "NO SEARCH" permit and were able to immediately produce the permit every time the police knocked on your door demanding to search your house.  Also, some people would be disqualified from purchasing the permit and always subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer if the person had legal problems in the past (e.g., a 30 year old misdemeanor conviction).

Seems to me we should not have to obtain a permit from the federal government to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

i had several comments about that post, but i'll just say it to the tea i'm drinking right now.
it will do as much good

[KW]

(FYI) The Federal Firearm protection Act governs firearms being transported on Federal US Highways ONLY. You cannot, for example, travel through New York City with a gun in your trunk.

As far as ‘rights’ being kept, enforced or assured by our Government, keep in mind that the writ of 'Habeas Corpus' (right to hearing to seek release from imprisonment) HAS been suspended by our Government in the past (Abraham Lincoln, but I beat that horse previously and don’t feel like doing it again.) I would also suggest anyone interested in rights being violated search out what occurred during Katrina in New Orleans when guns were illegally confiscated. In fact, in some ways, what happened in the following months and years is even more shocking.  So, no ‘rights’ are truly guaranteed and can be trampled on whim by any little local despot nutcase police chief or judge.

A Federal “law” letting me carry with my Michigan CPL anywhere in America? Sure. . . why not.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

States have all the power not expressly put forth by the Constitution.  With that being said, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and as affirmed by the two Supreme Court decisions against DC and Chicago, cannot be nullified by city or state legislation.
But, I do see why people would not want the gov't involved in granting us the ability to carry state to state.  So, to me, the solution is simple:  No permits needed to carry concealed or unconcealed as granted by the 2nd Amendment anywhere. Any mayor, or governor who makes legislation against carrying in their locale should be put in jail for violation of civil rights.  No cities or states can make laws against freedom of the press, freedom from self incrimination, and the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, so be it with freedom of defense.

I am Psychotic Bovine, and I stand by this message.

Well said.

[fudgie]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

Then I do not suppose you would have a problem if the federal government stated that all houses, homes, apartments, etc., were subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer unless you purchased a "NO SEARCH" permit and were able to immediately produce the permit every time the police knocked on your door demanding to search your house.  Also, some people would be disqualified from purchasing the permit and always subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer if the person had legal problems in the past (e.g., a 30 year old misdemeanor conviction).

Seems to me we should not have to obtain a permit from the federal government to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Welcome to Indiana. 

[Jabba]

I am a gun toter.  I am a 2nd ammendment fighter.  I am a Libertarian.  I don't want the Fed dictating to the states what they have to allow.  But at the same time, I think the states should HAVE to respect the US Constitution and the Bill of rights.  Additional legislation shouldn't be required, but rather some sort of something, that "encourages" the states to adhere to that which the US Constitution demands.

Jabba

[flcjr]

TED for pres!!!   I live in montana wich as some of the losest gun laws in the country and thats the way we like it here. I do have a cc but only because it speeds up the purchase of firearms. show your id and there no wait or even a call to the fed they just write down your info you pay and out the door. you can carry and i do open with no permit.

[fudgie]

TED for pres!!!   I live in montana wich as some of the losest gun laws in the country and thats the way we like it here. I do have a cc but only because it speeds up the purchase of firearms. show your id and there no wait or even a call to the fed they just write down your info you pay and out the door. you can carry and i do open with no permit.

Ind is very good with laws. You do need a permit tho to oc or cc. Very few places you cant carry. After carring in SD this year, which is gun friendly, I like Ind laws better.

[Cruzen]

Here's our law in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html

[KW]

One of the biggest perpetuated misnomers in America is we’re a ‘democracy.’  We’re not, we’re a Republic. The distinction is important because it specifically speaks to STATE RIGHTS! (BTW - If you think that’s ‘code talk’ for racism or makes me a libertarian, you’re most likely a lefty-loon Kool-Aid drinker.)

I support ‘State Rights’ only up to the point where it tramples on clearly conveyed constitutionally ‘guaranteed’ rights!

In THIS case the Fed are seeking, in effect, to limit certain States from “causing me harm” by infringing on my rights. So, the role of a federal authority would be consistent with the framers intent.

[Titan]

i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. i have to get permission from them to buy a gun anyway.

Then I do not suppose you would have a problem if the federal government stated that all houses, homes, apartments, etc., were subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer unless you purchased a "NO SEARCH" permit and were able to immediately produce the permit every time the police knocked on your door demanding to search your house.  Also, some people would be disqualified from purchasing the permit and always subject to search and seizure at any time by any police officer if the person had legal problems in the past (e.g., a 30 year old misdemeanor conviction).

Seems to me we should not have to obtain a permit from the federal government to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

What the hell are you talking about? I've seen a lot of crap thrown around here before but this is the longest stretch I've ever seen. It makes no sense whatsoever! I would almost think you made up that ridiculous scenario as a joke. But it really looks like you were serious! Really?

[The Anvil]

I am a gun toter.  I am a 2nd ammendment fighter.  I am a Libertarian.  I don't want the Fed dictating to the states what they have to allow.  But at the same time, I think the states should HAVE to respect the US Constitution and the Bill of rights.  Additional legislation shouldn't be required, but rather some sort of something, that "encourages" the states to adhere to that which the US Constitution demands.

Jabba

Well that's where this is such a no-brainer. If your state is not at the least a "will issue" state then it's laws are in violation of the BoR and therefore invalid.

[musclehead]

Yea I'm not sold on this yet. I wonder if they will make everyone get permits/lisc. Like PA Valker said, he can open carry without. I can do the same in Ohio, but not CC. Start messing with common law and it may hurt us then help us. Remember you can 'transport' a gun through every State.

I do my damdest not to visit a no gun/ mandatory helmet State. Will opt a helmet State if I can carry. 

You cannot transport a gun through any state! Take a pistol through New York or New Jersey and they will put you away for 5 years.

like they attempted to do in jersey with that Brian whatshisname, Christie commuted his sentence.

you SHOULD be able to transport a firearm through any state

[vanagon40]

Hey, actually I was serious.  My comment was directed at the poster who stated, “i don't have a problem with the feds issuing permits. . . .”  Because I am not aware of any handgun permit that is issued for free (or perhaps any other federal permit issued for free), I interpret this post as:

1) I have no objection to paying a fee to the federal government in order to exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms;

2) I have no objection to denying the right to keep and bear arms to citizens who refuse to apply for the permit and/or pay the required fee; and

3) I have no objection to allowing the federal government to make determinations [and perhaps arbitrary determinations] regarding who is entitled to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

It bothers me that citizens of the United States are readily willing to allow the federal government to force them to obtain a permit to exercise a constitutional right.

My analogy to the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment was intended to the make the point (that was pretty much expressed by the folks who responded to my post) that to compare the need to obtain a permit to exercise a constitutional right for any right other than the right to keep and bear arms is “whackadoo” and “makes no sense whatsoever . . . .”

Rather than ridicule my post, please explain why it is perfectly logical to give the federal government the right to condition the constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon obtaining a permit, but ludicrous to suggest that the government could impose such a condition on any other constitutional right (e.g., the right against search and seizure).