House passes concealed weapons permit bill

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by GrandpaDave, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. GrandpaDave

    GrandpaDave Monkey++

    Here's a bit of good news for us gun nuts
    A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.
    The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it.

    So what does that mean?
    Or in other words I with a Kansas CCW can walk into Calif with my Ruger under my jacket and they cant say nothing...

    Don't ya know that has to piss off the Brady Bunch (y)
    Dropy, tacmotusn, dragonfly and 4 others like this.
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    What that really means is that the senate has to have a similar bill in process, with differences ironed out in committee, then passed by both chambers. In the meantime, you know what you have to do. (This could take a while, as in years, before it becomes the law of the land. Dammit, anyway.)

    Good news for all that.
    buzzz and dragonfly like this.
  3. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Now all we need is a signature from Bobo the wonder Idiot to make it law.
    dragonfly likes this.
  4. freedom first

    freedom first Monkey+

    I disagree

    I do not consider this good news. Hopefully the senate will trash the idea.
    I do not wish the federal government to become involved in CCW issues at all, they will only screw it up. Imagine what the training, requirements, or cost will be IF and WHENS the feds get their hooks into something like CCW permits. You do not think they will force states like NY, NJ, Ca to honor other states CCW permits without some form federal control of what required to obtain that licensce, do you? If this passes it will be the beginning of the end.
    Ask any old truckdriver that operated what their licensce cost back in 1988 vs the CDL licensce they are required to have today. Ask them how much harder the testing is today vs back then.
    Let the states take care of their own reciprocity agreements. If a state doesn't honor my Mo, FL, or Az permit, Screw'em I don't need to go.
    craneje, gunbunny, buzzz and 3 others like this.
  5. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    Basically, I agree with freedom first's take on it.

    I might feel differently if I did not have LEOSA protection that makes my permit good in all states, but I really don't think so (especially since I make no bones about the fact that I believe LEOSA is a violation of states' rights).

    I just don't agree with how respect for states' rights suddenly goes out the window when we don't agree with requirements in some states.

    We need less power in DC, not more.
    craneje likes this.
  6. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    The 2nd Amendment is clear to us. I can see a lib saying that we selectively apply the 10th Amendment for states's rights when we want.
    Opinionated and dragonfly like this.
  7. STANGF150

    STANGF150 Knowledge Seeker

  8. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    I have MIXED feelings about this... I certainly can se Freedom First's point of view, and what will they do with alaska that does NOT have any CCW Law, and it is legal to carry CC or Open Carry anywhere in public, except where the Feds designate a Gun Free Zone. (Federal Property, and such) We do have what is left of our OLS CCW Permitting System, where you can get a Permit that allows for reciprocity with other States. It would be an incentive to get one of those I suppose. Just Undecided on this deal, but I have a while to think about it, because it isn't going to get past Schummer, Boxer, Feinstien, and Reed anytime soon..... ....
    Cephus likes this.
  9. CaboWabo5150

    CaboWabo5150 Hell's coming with me

    It's pointless.... Except to assert federal control over CCW...
    Unless I am mistaken, all of the States that have a shall issue laws, share reciprocity with each other.. Only Illinois remains. So, the law would only say what is already being done..
  10. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    Well...I am far from liberal, but I would tend to agree that both sides are guilty of applying the 10th and 14th in whatever way they think will accomplish their goals.

    I think anyone supporting this sacrifices any future credibility when arguing for states' rights.

    By the way, my copy of the constitution only protects the right to keep and bear arms...not the right to carry them in specifically the manner you wish. If there is a dfferent version, I would appreciate a copy.
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    "Bear" (to carry) is legal, means and methods are not specified as allowed or prohibited.
    STANGF150, Opinionated and Pax Mentis like this.
  12. larryinalabama

    larryinalabama Monkey++

    Why do weapons need to be concealed in the first place. In the old days holsters were fine. Were all fighting an up hill battle.
  13. munchy

    munchy Monkey+++

    The h.r. bill 822 definitley has some issues, However there is another bill H.R. 2900 which I think is more appropriate. I encourage everyone to contact their representatives and ask them to sponsor H.R. 2900.
  14. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    And what is not specified is reserved to the several states or to the people.

    From everything I have read, and I have put some time into it, I believe that the right to carry a gun without regard to who you are was meant by the framers to be a constitutionally protected right. Not for those who carry to carry as they please.

    I do not see a protected right to conceal a weapon upon your person and believe a community or state should be able to limit that...or, for that matter, require concealment if that is what the majority there desire.

    I admit, this is a hard one for me because I also don't want anyone telling me how to carry (one reason I live and spend the vast majority of my time in the places that I do), but I really hate the concept of the ever more homogenized American society...and the tacit acceptance of federal supremecy inherent in support of this law.
  15. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Your points are well taken. I have to say that when I posted that short/sweet interpretation, I did think of state's rights, and thought that the 2nd covers that simply with its verbiage. That said, I do not see where the states have any say in how and where carrying (bearing) is to be allowed or prohibited, nor any differentiation between concealed or open. In that, we agree. One concession, interstate commerce is in play for sales and transfers.

    I can see that the different rules from state to state are going to be a barrier to uniformity and will give TPTB fits trying to accommodate the lowest common denominator. (Or, depending on your point of view, highest, least common.)

    This bill will be a foot in the door, no more than that, and not even that if fails. We whine and complain about the nibbles the antis take, and point out their long term goals of complete prohibition of private firearms. I sorta like using their own tactics to achieve ours. This will not happen overnight.

    No laws nor regulations can survive if there is enough motivation to change them, tho' it is easier to stop them than reverse them. Thus spake me, and maybe me only.
    Pax Mentis likes this.
  16. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Pax-I totally agree. Either way. We can come up with peanuts!
  17. Gunny Highway

    Gunny Highway Hard Work and Sacrifice blessed by God's Grace

    the Bill of Rights merely " enumerates " a person's basic rights, making a numbered list of the rights that were given to me by God - those rights existed before the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. That being said, I am thankful they took the time to put them down on paper for all those that might have challenged my rights in the first place ;)

    We wouldn't have wanted things to get out of hand.....
  18. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    You know...after further thought, I actually thought of another angle that has me far less sure of my constitutional opposition.

    I remembered the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution...Art 4 Sec 1. Much abused and rarely upheld by, I mean SCOTUS, one could argue that it really should negate the need for this law in the first place...

    I would think that licensing, whether to drive, marry or carry a concealed weapon would be a public act, record or judicial proceeding.
  19. Opinionated

    Opinionated Monkey+

    I do not see why this is being over complicated the way it is. Politics maybe?

    Let me lay it out in simple terms (as my simple mind sees it):

    "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    No interpretation necessary. If I can not carry what I want, when I want, how I want, it is infringement.

    Training is a moral issue.
    A) Not in the entire history of government - any government - has legislating moral issues worked as intended.
    B) If Joe Blow wants to carry a concealed firearm and use it at their discretion without seeking out appropriate training to enable them to do so safely, efficiently, and effectively that is their problem. Most especially if they decide to employ that firearm unsafely, ineffectively, and inefficiently, in my presence. I believe in the natural order of things. That is MY right.

    See? Pretty simple stuff. (y)
    Alpha Dog, Sapper John and dragonfly like this.
  20. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    I like simple.....It works!
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary