Concerns with HR 822

[Jeepdriver97]

I am pleased that HR 822 (CC reciprocity) was passed by the House. Sending notes to my two Senators to concur.

My concern is that while "legal" to carry concealed, I might run afoul of the local law against concealed carry in a bar, for instance. In AZ the bar must post a state issued sign near the liquor license if guns are not allowed. But what is the law for concealed carry in bars in the other 48 (not IL) states? Near a school, in a public building? Seems like trying to reconcile all the different laws could put a fellow in serious jeopardy as he crosses state lines. It is difficult to keep up with one's own state's limitations. Learning 48 others could be a lifetime avocation.

[agrippakc]

This law is not the end all be all of glory to CCW permit holders. Illinois will still not get concealed carry or gun ownership for that matter, the CCW permit holder still has to do his or her homework about every state/county/city that they are traveling through. The only thing that changes is that if a state has CC permits allowed then they have to recognize other state's ccw permits. Here is the real problem... how can we agree with something that forces a state to do something that they did not agree to do? CCW is not quite like drivers license in that it is a very special privilege to have one. We like to think of it as a 2A right, but the fact is that it is NOT. All this does is allow for the Feds to force states to do other things based on this bill. Woe to us all if this actually passes, I am not a big fan of the Senate but I hope that they step on it. Let the flaming begin... I stand by this thought process.

[cgiven1]

This law is not the end all be all of glory to CCW permit holders. Illinois will still not get concealed carry or gun ownership for that matter, the CCW permit holder still has to do his or her homework about every state/county/city that they are traveling through. The only thing that changes is that if a state has CC permits allowed then they have to recognize other state's ccw permits. Here is the real problem... how can we agree with something that forces a state to do something that they did not agree to do? CCW is not quite like drivers license in that it is a very special privilege to have one. We like to think of it as a 2A right, but the fact is that it is NOT. All this does is allow for the Feds to force states to do other things based on this bill. Woe to us all if this actually passes, I am not a big fan of the Senate but I hope that they step on it. Let the flaming begin... I stand by this thought process.

There is constitutional authority for this law. 10 Amendment requires state to recognize the judicial acts of other states. Much like the arguement that since gay marriage is legal in MA. it has to be recognized by all states. Even with your view point, a carry permit is a judicial act as it is provided by law. The 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law. You can't have 50 different versions of a constitutional right. Yes, the carrier will have to spend time making sure he keeps up with the law in other states in which he may travel however, that is a small price to pay for being able to protect yourself while traveling.

[JimPage]

Traffic laws are also different in different states. What's the problem?

[Caribou]

You can buy a book or look up the CC information on the internet. Until gun laws are repealed there will be differences between States. It is the responsibility of each of us to know the laws of each State we travel to or pay the consequences. Just don't ask local LE for information, a few people in NY will tell you that is a bad idea.

[Seeya]

I've seen this comparision between dl & ccw before. Just some info on rights and privileges:

Right to Travel

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

WHO HAS RIGHTS?!

United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

you have a right exercise it

a tax is a fee.

[ezkl2230]

Michigan - concealed carry is prohibited where a business receives more than 50 percent of its income from alcohol sales (a bar).

[Inquisitor]

All this does is allow for the Feds to force states to do other things based on this bill. Woe to us all if this actually passes, I am not a big fan of the Senate but I hope that they step on it. Let the flaming begin... I stand by this thought process.

No matter how many times I read this kind of rant, I can't understand the statements that we should not do anything because maybe sometime somebody may make some changes to some laws or Bill[s] that may not be good for the furtherance of our 2nd Amendment rights. We should instead work very hard to make sure that nobody does anything and there are absolutely no changes to any gun laws, even if they are perceived as good, while we continue to complain about the current gun laws??????

[Inquisitor]

Maybe someday the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will be forced to answer the questions: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction; and, at what point do appropriate and reasonable regulations become, instead, a violation of the people's US Constitutional rights? But until then, the SCOTUS has held that concealed carry is a privilege and the Federal Government has declared that some people have, through due process, been disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; and, unless the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum lawful and necessary criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. If, those criteria are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.

Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont's, whereby each and every time a person's ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been “averted”. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility.

However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people's 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.

Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person's ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples' rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.

In summary, unless all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits.

Our goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. While an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because almost no one truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.

Conversely, only the truly delusional believe that by denying all law-abiding citizens their US Constitutional “right to keep and bear arms”, all weapons can be eliminated, thus creating a safe Utopian society. If they are not delusional, then what is their real purpose?

[anvil6]

This law is not the end all be all of glory to CCW permit holders. Illinois will still not get concealed carry or gun ownership for that matter, the CCW permit holder still has to do his or her homework about every state/county/city that they are traveling through. The only thing that changes is that if a state has CC permits allowed then they have to recognize other state's ccw permits. Here is the real problem... how can we agree with something that forces a state to do something that they did not agree to do? CCW is not quite like drivers license in that it is a very special privilege to have one. We like to think of it as a 2A right, but the fact is that it is NOT. All this does is allow for the Feds to force states to do other things based on this bill. Woe to us all if this actually passes, I am not a big fan of the Senate but I hope that they step on it. Let the flaming begin... I stand by this thought process.

One either wants to keep the mess we have now or one wants to make it better. Incrementalism. Nationwide recipocity is a step toward Constitutional carry, which is a step toward Diplomatic carry.

Human babies are a study in Incrementalism. Watch as one grows up. They roll over. They sit up (and promptly tip over). They crawl (sometimes backwards). They pull themselves upright on furniture, only to sink back down when balance and strength fails. They are coaxed into taking unsteady, tottering steps with the help of a (very much) trusted adult. They begin unsupported steps and fail as often as succeede. They may even revert back to the faster (and safer) crawl mode to get somewhere - for a short time. Suddenly,
"baby's" clothing doesn't immediately wear out at the knees and the shoes are no longer a scuffed mess atop the front. Then comes the day when (no longer) baby seems to sail effortlessly over a high-jump bar placed above shoulder level. WOW! And it all started with a roll.

WE need the courage of babies.