National Reciprocity on the horizon?

[sbb]

See article below that would allow national reciprocity for all concealed permit holders. Do you think it has a ghost's chance of passage? Will you lobby your congressman/congresswoman to support this bill?

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits
Last updated Monday, April 14, 2008 8:06 PM CDT in News
By Aaron Sadler
THE MORNING NEWS
Email this story Print this story Comment on this story WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

Boozman said the bill ensures Second Amendment rights.

"I've always felt like you can have a gun, openly display it, and there not be a problem," he said. That some states reject licensed permits from other states "infringes on the Constitution."

Nearly 62,000 Arkansans have concealed gun permits.



Arkansas permit holders are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 27 states, including every neighboring state.

Arkansas recognizes permits issued in 30 states.

Fourteen states do not recognize permits issued elsewhere.

"You have friends who are used to having a gun in their car and things like that, then inadvertently being over the state line or out of state and being concerned they were running afoul of state law," Boozman said.

Boozman's bill would require even Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not have right-to-carry laws, to recognize licenses issued in other states.

A bipartisan group of 33 House members are co-sponsors of the bill, Boozman said.

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to gain enough support for the legislation, and said there is anti-gun sentiment in the Democratic-led Congress. But he cited statistics that indicate crime decreases in states with concealed guns laws.

According to a study cited by the National Rifle Association, violent crime declined each year from 1977 to 1994 in jurisdictions where a concealed gun law was in effect.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

Arkansas at one time had minimum reciprocity requirements, said state police spokesman Bill Sadler. Those regulations mandated that other states' training standards must be equal to or stronger than Arkansas' minimum requirements for a permit holder.

The General Assembly since has stripped those requirements, Sadler said.

Sadler said he would not comment on the merits of Boozman's bill until he had seen the proposed legislation.

Boozman said he feels strongly that Americans should be allowed to carry guns.

"I grew up in Arkansas, and it was not uncommon to see people in high school with gun racks in the back of their trucks, who would go squirrel hunting after school was over," Boozman said. "To be honest, it's something I always felt like there wasn't any question we could do these things."

His 26-year-old daughter, Kristen Boozman, has an Arkansas concealed weapons permit, as do other family members, he said. The congressman himself does not.

[seamusTX]

Zero. Nowhere. This bill will not get out of committee in the current Congress. No current candidate for president would sign it if it was passed by the next Congress.

I'm talking about political reality, not what I would like.

I'm not sure how my representative, Ron Paul, would vote on such a bill.

- Jim

[boomerang]

The constitution says "full faith and credit" so why do we need this law?

[Mike1951]

It depends. We've gained everything so far with state control of the licensing. It's not perfect, but far better than anything most would have expected.

If a national reciprocity bill gave the Feds control of the licensing, then it could be infringed or eliminated at their whim.

If the licensing stays the same and is treated the same as driver licenses, I could support it.

If the Feds assume any control at all, then I could NOT support it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

It depends. We've gained everything so far with state control of the licensing. It's not perfect, but far better than anything most would have expected.

If a national reciprocity bill gave the Feds control of the licensing, then it could be infringed or eliminated at their whim.

If the licensing stays the same and is treated the same as driver licenses, I could support it.

If the Feds assume any control at all, then I could NOT support it.

But I also agree with Jim that this bill has zero chance of getting out of committee.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ron Paul would support it, assuming that it didn't give the feds any control over the license process itself in each state.

The constitution has a full faith and credit clause, but for reasons I do not fully understand it does not seem to be applied evenly. I think that the jurisdiction can be modified by statute. (Think the Defense of Marriage Act, where the Congress removed state recognition of other states' marriage licenses from the jurisdiction of the courts, as provided for in the constitution.)

Still, I am curious as to how a full faith and credit lawsuit would fare.

[KBCraig]

Do you think it has a ghost's chance of passage? Will you lobby your congressman/congresswoman to support this bill?

No, and no.

If you think dealing with different state laws is bad, just wait until President Clinton and Speaker Pelosi start having a say in the matter.

Keep the federal government out of it altogether.

(For the inevitable reply about drivers licenses: states do not accept each other's DLs because of a federal mandate. They do so because they reached agreements and compacts between the states, just as CHL reciprocity is working itself out. It took more than 60 years for the states to work out DL reciprocity; let's give CHL reciprocity more than 10 years before throwing open the tent flaps and inviting the camel in.)

[anygunanywhere]

To think that anyone would believe that the federal government, who gave us the NFA 1934 and GCA of 1968 and the lapsed AWB, will actually support any aspect of our RKBA is foreign to me.

The federal government is not our friend. Keep them out of the CHL debate.

The fact that many representatives signed onto the brief in support of Heller has absolutely nothing to do with their support of our RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

[srothstein]

Well, it seems to me that this bill is exactly what quite a few CHL's asked for just a few years ago. Does anyone remember the debate over the LEOSA (HR218 at the time)? One of the questions asked was about a similar bill for CHL.

I am supporting this bill and will lobby for it. I do not think it will pass right away, but it can pass with support in the next few years. And I think it will be signed by the next president if it passes Congress. Obviously, I do not think either Hillary or Barack will be the next president.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My concern about federally-mandated reciprocity is that it would have to be based upon the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. There is no other authority for such legislation. The Commerce Clause is also the authority for the federal gun-free school zone law. If we ever have to fight the gun-free school zone statute, we will have to argue that it exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause and invades the police powers of the states. I'd hate to be the attorney in oral arguments answering the obvious question from an appellate judge, "Mr. Cotton, do you feel the same way about the federal mandatory CHL reciprocity statute?"

Chas.

[srothstein]

While I agree that it is probably goign to be based on the commerce clause (and I have not read the bill yet), is it possible to claim it is based on enforcing full faith and credit?

I started to say this is more directly involed in interstate commerce since the very idea means the person who held the CHL was traveling interstae, but then i thought about a non-resident license. But wouldn't a non-resident license be interstate commerce also, since it involved a person in one state buying something in another? The law could mean the elimination of non-resident licenses, which would probably hurt a lot of people.

I promised I would support this if it came along when we were debating LEOSA, even though I did not support LEOSA (as a real stretch on the interstate commerce clause). It may have some problems I did not think about, and I need to check the wording. But I owe the concept my supprot for the many CHL's who supported the push for LEOSA as a foot in the door on gun rights.

[seamusTX]

Full faith and credit is too complicated for my simple mind. It does not force states to honor things like medical licenses from other states.

I agree with Charles that if this law is based on the commerce clause, it lives or dies with the gun-free school zone law, and an earlier version of that has already been declared unconstitutional. (I had not thought about this aspect earlier).

Furthermore, if we assert that a CHL issued by any state is valid in every other state, we have to ask if the same principle would allow someone who owns a machine gun in Indiana or Kentucky to take it to Illinois or California.

I think it would make more sense to try to link CHL reciprocity to equal protection, but someone smarter than me would have to figure out how that works.

Anyway, I don't see federally enforced CHL reciprocity going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

- Jim

[boomerang]

If they're going to do it they should simply add CHL to LEOSA.

After all, they promised LEOSA was a stepping stone to nationwide CHL when they asked us to write and call our representatives to support LEOSA.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Some cities like New York have said they are going to challenge LEOSA on the grounds that it exceeds the authority of the Commerce Clause and invades the police powers of the state. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? If it survives that challenge, then so will the federal gun-free school zone.

The full faith and credit clause has pretty much been limited in application to judgments issued by state courts. It has not been held to require one state to recognize any other state's licenses, including professional licenses (as previously mentioned) and driver's licenses. Driver's licenses are recognized because all states are members of a nationwide compact.

The Commerce Clause is the only possible authority for LEOSA, federal CHL reciprocity and federal gun-free school zones. When using the Commerce Clause, the focus is on the gun, not the person. All three of the statutes at issue state that, if the gun has traveled in interstate commerce, or affects interstate commerce, then it applies. This is the language that was missing from the first federal gun-free school zone statute that was overturned by the Supreme Court. When another version passed, it had the appropriate language. No challenge has been filed and I don't know if any convictions have been obtained.

Chas.

[srothstein]

The full faith and credit clause has pretty much been limited in application to judgments issued by state courts. It has not been held to require one state to recognize any other state's licenses, including professional licenses (as previously mentioned) and driver's licenses. Driver's licenses are recognized because all states are members of a nationwide compact.

Charles, one of the reasons I think it could work on the faith and credit clause is that the above is not true. Driver's licenses ARE recognized based on that clause. The Interstate compact does not recognize driver's licenses, but tells how to deal with violations and accidents reported from other states. Also, not every state is currently in the compact (46 are left in it I think).

I know they do not recognize professional licenses, but they do recognize marriage licenses (and common-law marriages). These are not necessarily court acts, but in reality just a registration with the state.

And I think that the person being interstate makes this one much more related to interstate commerce than the gun free zone. It would be much like LEOSA is written to specify the firearm must have traveled in interstate commerce. It also helps in that most states recognized the rights of their own officers to carry, so the LEOSA is primarily dealing with people that are truly interstate. If the challenge to LEOSA throws it out, then this law would not stand a chance, but a challenge to the gun free zone is not nearly as good a case, IMHO.

Obviously, this is an academic discussion of the challenges because the perfect case could be perfect for either side. A cop interstate who shoots a robber in the act gets challenged on hsi right to carry is probably going to be upheld. A CHL who carries someplace in violation of local trespass laws and gets caught is probably going to go against us.

[KBCraig]

Some cities like New York have said they are going to challenge LEOSA on the grounds that it exceeds the authority of the Commerce Clause and invades the police powers of the state. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? If it survives that challenge, then so will the federal gun-free school zone.

Exactly.

If we accept federally-mandated national CHL reciprocity, then we accept GFSZA. And of course, we would also have to accept a national ban on concealed carry, such as that supported by Barrack Obama.

Keep. The. Feds. Out. Of. It.