It’s sponsor, Fla. Rep. Cliff Stearns is pushing the bill:
Saying Americans need a “fighting chance” to confront outlaws in a violent society, U.S. Rep Cliff Stearns has gone on the offensive to promote his bill to allow concealed-weapons permit-holders to cross state lines without fear of having their constitutional rights curtailed by another state’s laws.
[…]
Stearns and Boucher filed the bill, known formally as the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197), earlier this month.
The bill would cause states that issue concealed-weapons permits to recognize valid permits held by visitors from other concealed-carry states, such as Florida. Yet those permit-holders would be subject to the regulations of the host state, not those of their home state.
You would even be able to carry in states that don’t issue CCW permits. You can expect plenty of opposition to that. Some states that have “may issue” permits, such as NY and NJ, don’t issue non-resident permits nor do they allow (as far as I know) reciprocity with other states. I”m sure that IL and WI would have fits.
You can read Stearns’ op-ed here.
And what happens to Vermonters and Alaskans, where CCW is allowed without a permit?
Somehow I don’t see the new, largely liberal Democratic Congress passing this or Obama signing it but we can Hope for Change.
26 Responses to “National CCW Reciprocity Bill”
on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:57 am # Michael
I think this is a great idea and I wish Mr. Stern good luck in getting it passed.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:09 am # Chad
That’s my one big objection to Vt carry, no reciprocity with other states…if I want to travel to other states, I have to get a permit from a state that issues non-res permits, and even then, there are states that only recognize permits from a person’s state of residence. Michigan comes immediately to mind.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:23 am # Jim
I wish him luck, but with the Social-Democrats in charge of the Senate, House, & the White House I really don’t see this bill getting out of Committee.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:28 am # kevino
I agree that it doesn’t have a chance, but it should be tried anyway. And I suggest that liberals and the public be reminded of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution: “Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state”.
That is the way that liberals like to quote the Constitution to back up their favorite ideas such as recognizing gay marriage in all 50 states. Of course, the complete clause allows the Federal government to place restrictions on the proceedings of other states: “Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.” Still, it’s fun to take the liberals tactic and turn it against them.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:38 am # Roy
This is an excellent idea and the proper way to support the 2nd Amendment - because at the end of the day, the right to self-defense is what it is all about.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:45 am # Mori
Overriding states’ rights to enhance gun rights can very easily turn around and bite us on the ass. Congress is more likely to use the same power to suppress gun rights in all states. Better to leave the laboratories of democracy alone to make their own gun laws than to force them into conformity, good or bad, as inconvenient as that may be.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:48 am # Matt Maynard
As for VT and AK, I suppose proof of residence (like a driver’s license) would be sufficient, but who knows? I hope this passes, I’d like to have the Full Faith & Credit Clause back in the Constitution please.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:51 am # mike123
I believe AK still issues licenses. Licenses are not needed to carry though in-state.
Ever notice how bills like this are introduced when there is no chance of passage but not when the Republicans are in control of both houses?
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:54 am # Joe
I don’t like the idea of the Federal government regulating our rights. This could go very bad very fast if you ask me since my permit in Indiana would then be subject to other states whims.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:57 am # David
I lived in VT for a number of years and while I never looked into it, due to not having the desire to carry outside the state, my understanding is that VT does offer concealed carry permits just for reciprocity purposes. This would only help in a limited sense though since to the West is NY and South is MA–neither of which recognise out of state permits.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:10 am # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
Joe:
Other states recognize Indiana’s drivers’ licenses, don’t they?
Of course, there is also that Full Faith and Credit/Gay Marriage thing. For myself, Instapundit has convinced me that the government shouldn’t even be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:11 am # Anaithnid
Mike123:
“Ever notice how bills like this are introduced when there is no chance of passage but not when the Republicans are in control of both houses?”
Actually, a bill similar to this gets proposed about every year, regardless of whether or not Republicans are in the majority. A google search for “National Concealed Carry Reciprocity 2005″ shows a bill that was proposed by John Hostettler.
Now, why these don’t seem to have any legs isn’t something I can really speak to. But, I’m one of those “vote with your feet” libertarian types, so that some states and counties decide to be more restrictive than others is, I think, up to those folks that live in those areas.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:12 am # Allen
Mori,
I always thought the Bill of Rights should supercede state’s rights. Should a state be able to restrict speech/religous choice/right of assembly?
on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:28 am # scott
Bets that the anti-gunners don’t really want to treat guns like cars?
on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:33 am # comatus
Allen has it. This is not a Full Faith case, but a simpler 2A one, enforceable as a 14A “privilege or immunity.”
It may use up 15 minutes of the subcommittee’s time that otherwise would be spent authorizing some billion-dollar expenditure. That is its only purpose in this Congress, and may be the only strategy at hand. Federal spending is limited only by the number of hours in a day.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 11:32 am # ajacksonian
Art. IV, Sec. 2 (first sentence and stand alone paragraph as single sentence):
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Also all armed citizens fall under the Dick Act and the unorganized militia which is a guarantee to the people, via Amendment II and to the States in Art. I, Sec. 10, last paragraph:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
For a State to have the ability to protect itself against invasion or ‘imminent Danger as will not admit of delay’ the common citizen armed as the unorganized militia must have the right to move freely with arms across other States without fear of having such arms removed as it is vital to EACH State to have this right for protection of itself. There was reciprocity amongst the Colonies for their Militias to come to the aid of All the States and not be hampered by Any of them when invaded or in imminent danger. To enforce our declared Sovereignty each armed individual was expected to do more than protect just themselves in such cases. Putting States laws in place to help organization of their own Militias may not put the rights of citizens of other States passing through at risk of losing their arms as that is a vital right of the States and Individuals, both.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 11:57 am # DirtCrashr
That would mean you guys COULD finally come in and rescue California!
on 27 Jan 2009 at 12:34 pm # Dies Irae
Rep. Stearns introduces this bill about every year. Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened yet, and its chances aren’t looking up this year…
on 27 Jan 2009 at 2:47 pm # Kent G. Budge
I’m with Mori. I like the idea of states entering voluntarily into compacts to recognize each others’ carry permits. Enforcing this from the federal level, not so much.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 2:56 pm # Unix-Jedi
Let’s not forget what was said when “H.R. 218″ was being voted on.
I remember being _assured_ by many on forum boards that if we supported LEO’s not being risked by random and obscure laws, that they’d support those of us with concealed permits in being free of the same mismash of laws, regulations and jurisdictions.
….
Time to get that support that was promised, right?
on 27 Jan 2009 at 4:06 pm # ron
Kent Mori and Joe. It all depends on how the law is phrased. If it gives negative powers, saying the states cannot prohibit the exercise of a citizen’s right to carry, then it is not a federal regulation of RTC, but a prohibition on the states infringing on a constitutional right. Big difference.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 4:43 pm # Tim N
First, its not a delegated power
Second, if it were the bill falls far short by attempting to cast only certain actions with certain weapons as defensible or protected. What if ther person prefers a Class III for home defense?
Third, it poorly summarizes the concept of self-defense as a home based right whereas federally it probably would have at least been more constitutionally sound if the bill talked about the need in the context of interstate travel and car jackings.
on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:24 pm # Steve
The anti-gunners continue to propose legislation every year, even if they know it doesn’t have a chance of passing. Pro-gunners need to do the same thing until it finally gets passed.
on 28 Jan 2009 at 10:14 am # Kfurtzum
if you live in texas and apply for a license to carry it takes 4 t0 5 months to get one in the mean time if you need to have a gun to protect your live you are out of luck in my opinion every citizen who passes a background check should be able to carry a weapon concealed or in the open good luck americans for in the next 4 years see you rights disapear one by one
on 29 Jan 2009 at 2:38 pm # herman
sounds good but it will never happen. the laws vary from state to state (flee, dont flee, shoot robber, dont shoot invader, when and where i can carry) you would need a state by state revamp of the criminal law and thats not going to happen either. or you would need a state by state training program, national id cards (fbi biometric database up and running, and US troops using technology now) which is eventually coming.
some of these arguments are a bit off, 2nd amendment and ccw permits are usually 2 different arguments. even in nyc you can get a home/target permit (with a clean record, patience, and prayer). that argument has satisfy the courts regarding the 2nd amendment. (although i dont completely agree)
as mentioned above the national police officers bill (hr218 Law Enforcement Safety Act) passed back in 2004 still is a debacle. (and a debacle by conservatives i may add) very few large agencies have complied and most unions are still advising officers not to carry other than on official business where legal carry is permitted
i know i’m beating the beehive but this blog article is slightly flawed. usacarry.com (formerly packing.org) has the state by state resident and non resident permits chart along with reciprocity for each state.
on 29 Jan 2009 at 11:44 pm # PeterFF
Correction: Jim Doyle would have a fit, not Wisconsin. I am sure a few people would, but CCW has passed out of the legislature twice with health margins, only to be vetoed by Doyle. I believe the majority of my fellow WI residents would be fine seeing something like this. Especially if it forced them to honor non-resident permits held by WI residents