CCW advocates have been following the progression of HR Bill 822, which proposes national concealed carry reciprocity by which a person who has obtained a valid CCW permit in one state can legally carry concealed in any other state. This bill has, of course, generated a tremendous amount of fear and doubt on both sides of the issue. Here are a few of the concerns (both real and imagined). . .
- The law would create a “race to the bottom” in which states that have very strict laws around CCW permit issuance would be forced to allow visitors who come from states with less strict gun laws to be able to carry in their states, thus circumventing the existing structure.
- The law would create a Federal registry and Federal standards for permit issuance thus letting the Federal Government and their “Black Helicopters” know who has guns and who does not.
- States rights would be trampled as they would be forced to possibly change the criteria under which they issue licenses to comply with the new law.
Of the three points above, only the first is really relevant. The other two are the result of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). The proposed law does not create any Federal system for licensing gun owners, nor does it require states to change their existing policies for CCW issuance. Point three does have some merit in that Federal law would override States’ interest in creating laws, but if you subscribe to the argument that the Constitution trumps State Law then, technically, it is illegal for states to define laws that undermine the second amendment.
All that aside, I’d like to make a modest proposal that might help bridge some of the gaps. It certainly won’t please everyone as some people simply do not want guns in the hands of citizens period under any circumstances. But they are by far not in the majority in this country and that view is so far outside the main stream of opinion in this country that it doesn’t merit consideration here.
Let me start my proposal by laying out several of my beliefs with respect to CCW:
- CCW licenses should be issued only to law-abiding citizens. If you have a history of committing felonies, committing domestic abuse or similar crimes, then no soup for you.
- We require drivers of automobiles to receive training and pass a competency test before they are allowed to drive. Why should we not ask the same of people who plan to carry concealed weapons in public? Note here that I am not saying you need to take a course and pass a test to simply own a gun. I only want competency tests for people who plan to carry them in public. We require our police to periodically demonstrate competency by periodically qualifying with their weapon, so why should citizens be different?
- Any qualification program must be reasonable. One fear that many people have is that the state might set the qualification bar so high that few people can ever pass it. A qualification program must be constructed such that a person can reasonably pass it with some practice. My gun club, for example, requires all members to annually qualify by putting 9 out of 10 shots onto a 2′ x 3′ cardboard target from 50′. This is not that hard and would demonstrate that at 50′, a person can generally get their bullets into the right place.
With that said, here is my modest proposal. First, I would define the qualification and background check requirements by incorporating the opinions of multiple stakeholders from police to the NRA to very senior firearm instructors, etc. Call it a blue ribbon panel that would define the criteria.
Once we had reached agreement on the criteria, I would then offer the states a choice. If their existing permit issuance program meets or exceeds these national standards, then they are all set. Carry on business as usual and your permit will be recognized in all 50 states.
If, however, you live in a state whose permit issuance criteria does not meet the national standards, the state would have a choice. It could continue to issue permits the way it always had, but those permits would not be recognized outside the home state, absent a specific reciprocity agreement with other states. For instance, your New Hampshire CCW permit would only be good in New Hampshire.
Alternatively, the state could change its permit issuance process to comply with the minimum Federal standards at which point the state’s permits would be recognized everyone. On the off chance that you wanted a nationally recognized permit and your state did not want to change its rules, you could always apply for an out of state permit from one of the states that has a qualifying program and thus obtain a nationally recognized license.
The beauty of this system is that it preserves most of the states’ rights. Your state and only your state would have your personal qualifying information. There would be no Federal registry and, even better, you would not have to apply for permits in every state you want to take a firearm into. States could choose to modify their permitting process to comply with the program or not, but they cannot choose to prevent U.S. citizens who have passed the qualifying criteria from carrying concealed where they want. It would also take the power away from anti-gun politicians and return it to the people where it belongs.
I believe everyone here would benefit from reading this article on the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=1052
Amen. Thanks for that link – powerful stuff. Rights are Rights – not privileges granted by the government.
I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) but what you suggested is essentially what HR 822 does. That part of a 49 (hopefully soon to be 50) state reciprocity CCW agreement means that there was a recognized minimum set of qualifications: fingerprints, (FBI) background check, some form of formal training; and that if your state met these requirements you became HR 822 compliant.
I fully agree with that. My feelings on a CCW permit are this. Yes, second amendment, personal liberty, freedom, founding fathers, and so on and so forth. Let’s be reasonable. The basic assumption by police is that if you have a gun on you, you are a bad guy and up to no good. Is that a violation of “innocent before proven guilty” yes, but you are not going to change the attitude any time soon. So I see a CCW permit as a piece of paper that you can show to police which in effect says:
“Don’t worry about me, I am a good guy, I have no criminal record, and I know how to use this gun safely. I am not a threat to you, you have no reason to suspect that I am engaged in criminal activity or have malice in my heart just because I am currently carrying a guy.”
I just wish more police were trained to see CCW holders in that light rather than as proto-criminals who haven’t gotten caught yet.
“The law would create a Federal registry and Federal standards for permit issuance” … “The other two are the result of FUD”…I disagree.
Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA), a former Sheriff, introduced amendment H.AMDT.876 to the bill which was agreed to by voice vote. The amendment requires a GAO study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits. One of the arguments against the bill is that law enforcement already has a hard time verifying the validity of out-of-state permits.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like the first step to a national registry of CCW holders.
Studies are routinely done. It doesn’t mean it’s part of the law or even WILL be part of the law. It simply says that they’ll piss away taxpayers money on some foolish “study” that has little to no relevance to reality.
a member of congress can request a study at any time and part of any bill (it is a privilege, which is why it was a voice vote rather than a recorded one). All it does here is tell those who opposed the bill to STFU and that will take away one of the arguments against HR822
Everybody who is not in an institution of some sort should be able to carry a gun wherever, whenever. I don’t care if every crook in the country never steps out of the house without at least three guns on his person. The problem is not that the bad guys have guns, it’s convincing them that attempting to use them to make other people miserable is a right now, in-your-face DANGEROUS thing to do. No, this is not an extreme “wacko” idea.
Remember the Bernie Goetz incident in New York quite awhile ago? Bernie, taking exception to the idea of surrendering his wallet in return for not having his face rearranged with a screwdriver, discovered option #2…shoot the bad guys. Then he disappeared for three and a half days before turning himself in at the local police station and telling them he was the guy who did it.
Funny thing is that during that three and a half day period, violent crime on the NY subway system dropped by 50%!!! After Bernie was identified and his picture plastered all over the city in newspapers and on the boob tube, violent crime ratcheted right back up to the old levels in another couple of days.
For three and a half days, the idea that some faceless guy sitting a few feet away might just blow your brains all over the windows if you didn’t behave yourself kept fully half of the bad guys quiet, even though they still had the same needs, impulses and weapons. Please name one single other event or practice that has ever had that kind of effect on violent crime in NY or anywhere else! (“Community policing” maybe? NOT.)
The question becomes, is this effect repeatable? Is it reliable? Is it transportable?
Orlando, Florida, circa 1967. The rape rate has been climbing precipitously since last year. The public is scared. The cops are mad. The perps are, somehow, not being caught. An Orlando cop supervisor type gets an interesting idea. He knows that a lot of the local women are buying guns, and he knows a lot more already have them. He puts out a flyer telling the local women that if the have or get a gun, come on down to the cop shop and they’ll show her how to really shoot it.
Three months later a reporter from the Orlando Sentinel gets ahold of the story, makes a few calls and talks to the cop that came up with the idea. The next day the paper’s headline reads, “2500 Orlando women now trained to shoot”. Within 72 hours the rape rate declined by 67%, and remains lower than the state norm in the Orlando area to this day.
So I don’t CARE if the bad guys have guns…as long as enough of the rest of us have them to convince crooks that trying to use guns to hurt or kill people without a darn good reason is a good way to get themselves dead, pronto.
I would agree that the bad guys having guns isn’t really the issue, but I see no reason to make it easier for THEM to get guns. The rest of your post I can understand.
Point there is that none of the “common sense” restrictions set up to prevent the criminals (defined as those who simply ignore law to go violently after whatever they want) manage to achieve that without placing (frequently) onerous restrictions on those of us who are NOT criminals. Whatever makes it more difficult for the good guys to simply, peaceably and conveniently obtain their weapons is counterproductive in terms of individual and community protection.
Of course, if the aim is other than protection from criminal violence, say discouraging the possession and use of firearms and/or defense in general…well then…maybe we’d better know that, too.
“OnlyKetchup says:
February 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM
I would agree that the bad guys having guns isn’t really the issue, but I see no reason to make it easier for THEM to get guns. The rest of your post I can understand.”
how many bad guys are gonna sign papers and give thier true ID got get a CCW come on people the good guys are not the damn problem
If the good guys are not the problem then why are they being saddled with all the laws, regulations, procedures, ID and all the rest of it? If the crooks don’t have to obtain a CCW then why should I have to…unless I’m applying for the state’s permission to exercise a privilege that can be denied at whim?
Get it straight please. Making it “easier” for crooks to obtain or carry weapons (an arguable premise to begin with) has nothing to do with making it less trying for me to buy, possess and carry.
Fully agree with you Schisms. Bad guys are a concern to me only to the extent of how I must protect myself and my family from them. To OnlyKetchup, bad guys will always and easily get guns. Even if there was a drive by the government to get all guns, bad guys will get guns. One thing the gun haters don’t understand is the cat is out of the bag. Guns aren’t that hard to make and neither is ammunition. Heck, at that time I would be one of the bad guys. I want to further the acceptance of my rights, don’t care about the bad guys’.
Ahem see the bill of rights, second amendment, last line…… shall not be infringed
Jim, your ideas will never be adopted they are entirely too reasonable.
There are no federally-mandated standards for obtaining a drivers license, which is a privilege and not a right, and you propose federally-mandated standards for bearing arms, which is a right?
Gee, sorry, but I’ll have to pass.
you cannot drive without a license. give it a try and see what happens when Smokey pulls you over. I am sure he will be thrilled with the whole Bill of Rights argument.
I agree in concept, but . . . . we are not there yet and it will take baby steps. It wasn’t like the civil war ended and suddenly all was well. Even after Brown v Board of Ed, it took years to implement the Bill of Rights fully. I am patient. If a state-issued license satisfies the critics and puts the issue to bed for now, fine.
Actually you can drive for years without a driver’s license. It is only a minor fine IF you get caught speeding, having an accident, DUI……. Just like you could carry a concealed weapon for years without a permit, criminals do it continually. It only becomes an issue if you use it. Laws don’t prevent anything. The best they can do is provide an excuse for punishing someone after the fact. Yes, you can “yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater” causing a panic where people are trampled. It MAY result in your arrest, trial and punishment after the fact. But the “Law” does not require that you be gagged before you are allowed to enter the theater.
Ralph,
Please see my reply comment to Morseus near the beginning of this thread regarding the right to drive.
Watch it so it does not become as stupid as it is in Sweden. Here it is a year of study and at least once a week engagements in courses and stuff before you are even considered for owning a handgun, and then only for competition. You are not allowed to carry it or protect yourself with it. Even at home and even if your life is in danger. If you manage to hurt someone you are tried for attempted murder regardless.
Another example s the gangmember who had an illegal FA ak47 on his person when the police caught him. He got leniency because “he needed to protect himself from other criminals”. This is how retarded gun laws can get when certain political views get a foothold.
It is a slippery slope and the end is gun bans for law abiding people.
So, here is a quick scenario – I’m curious. New law goes into effect tomorrow:
1. Pass a Federal Background Check (FBI kind of thing)
2. Demonstrate minimum competency (9 out of 10 rounds) into 2.5′ x 3.5′ target at 50 feet
3. Pay fee of $100
Do these three things and you get a five year permit to carry concealed in any state – State laws cannot be passed to prevent you from doing this.
Do you do this? Yes or No? No editorials here – just a simple Yes/No answer. I know that my scenario is not realistic, but I’m curious how many people will put aside their concern and mistrust about a Federal registry in favor of getting a nationwide concealed carry permit.
No! I do not ask permission for that which is naturally mine. Peace.
The “race to the bottom” is a feature, not a bug. It is actually a race to restore the right to carry that traditionaly existed outside of the slave states before the civil war.
Constitutional carry is what is on the horizon.
I submit we are living in a post Constitutional Era. The POTUS through Czars, govermentl organizations, (ATfF, EPA, Dept of Educ), are making edics and fiat laws, thus going around congress and the peoples representatives. How is that different from a Dictatorship? The governemnt propaganda machine is the media which act as government cheeleaders and filter the news. Almost all rights protected by the Constitution are being violated without serious objects. Our 230+ years experiment in self government appears to be failing fast. The national debt, the economy, the entitlements will sooner or later collapse the system in probably less than 10 yrs.
The natural or most basic form of governance of human affairs is dictatorship. Whether because most people are followers or because the growth of bureaucracy leads to an “us vs them” mentality, all democratic forms of government in the history of mankind have failed. Robert Michels formulated the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”: “Who says organization, says oligarchy.” Darcy K. Leach summarized them briefly as: “Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts.” Any large organization, Michels pointed out, has to create a bureaucracy in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.Therefore, the more power that resides in the hands of the oligarchy/bureacracy, the less freedom there will be. Further, to protect its power, the oligarch–whether a bureacratic or elitist one does not matter–will seek to control the means by which it can be attacked and its power lessened. It will limit the vote, and it will limit the availability of weapons to its citizens/denizens.Conversely, to protect freedom, regulation and licensure should be studiously avoided.
“Ahem see the bill of rights, second amendment, last line…… shall not be infringed”"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” Well regulated meaning properly trained and competent, a reasonable demonstration of such is constitutional. It can not have the intent or effect of denying the right to the citizenry like the Mississippi literacy test of Jim Crow times.
Define “properly”. Define “competent”. Define “reasonable”. In acceptable terms. Hint: Acceptable to whom?
How about “properly” being thru an accredited course costing no less than $2000, with special $1000 tax for “community liability insurance”, tax to be raised at the discretion of local, county or state government bureau tasked to examine the issue yearly.
“Competent” to the level of at least medium grade competition shooting.
“Reasonable” as defined by CDC in accordance with standards recommended by Violence Policy Center.
“Intent” will be judged by District Court of Appeals at some point, SCOTUS most likely refusing to hear challenges for decades.
Nope, not interested.
[Of the three points above, only the first is really relevant.]
Actually, the first point is misdirection. The states like Texas, with higher training standards, aren’t the ones wailing about national reciprocity. The people bitching run the states with discretionary licenses, which limit carrying to the politically connected. No amount of required training will bring them on board.
[Note here that I am not saying you need to take a course and pass a test to simply own a gun. I only want competency tests for people who plan to carry them in public. We require our police to periodically demonstrate competency by periodically qualifying with their weapon, so why should citizens be different?]
First, I think you’d be astounded at how little time some police officers spend at the range.
Second, I would never even consider a federal training requirement for civilians only. If it’s mandatory for me, it should be mandatory for everyone who carries in public, including law enforcement, security officers, and the military. And no “LEO only” classes. They come and shoot with us. Providing they obey the safety rules we’ll make room for them. After all, where I live there are about ten licensees for every state and local cop.
States (orpersons) who oppose national reciprocity predicate their arguments on the basis of “states rights,” i.e., the alleged power to decide who is qualified to bear firearms in public. The typical sop is to propose some kind of national standard of training or proficiency. I suggest that this response is exactly the wrong response to make to a very poor and illogical argument.
First: It is not an issue of state’s rights. It is an issue of an individual right not granted to citizens by either the federal or state governments. The states, after MacDonald, cannot deny anyone within their borders, at least generally speaking, the right to keep and bear arms. (I’ll leave aside the the arguments as to what this right actaully entails.)
SEcond, the argument that the state will not be able to impose or enforce its standards on visitors, and that this somehow increases the risk of harm, is specious. The fact is that if you have a driver’s license you can drive in all fifty states, and you don’t have to pass some sort of uniform test to get that license. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that out-of-stae CCW licensees are more prone to commit crimes of NDs when out of state than in state. The real purpose of the argument is to protect the power of “may issue” states to continue denying citizen’s the authority to bear arms, i.e., the “more guns equals more crime” scenario. Andfurthermore, as far as I know, there isn’t a system in place that allows a police officer in staste A to check the validity of a driver’s license from state B–so why should it be any different for guns?
Third, if there is crime associated with the use of firearms, every state has laws already on the books to deal with those crimes. Those statutes don’t distinguish between people who are residents of the state and those merely passing through.
Therefore, every argument against reciprocity should be uncovered as really nothing more than an argument against allowing concealed carry, and the states the don’t allow or limit it will be the ones yelling the loudest to keep any such law off the books. Reciprocity will sound the death kell for “may issue” or “no issue” state laws.
I am impressed with the “caliber” of the comments posted here. Not everyone agrees but all are thoughtfully and courteously presented using standard English grammar and syntax.
Well done considering our typical media portrayal as a bunch of “wife-beating rednecks”!
“Carry” on! (this pun intended also)