Quote:
Originally Posted by snuffy51
I don't want a chance there could be any influence from the northeast or the west coast on anything I have now. I do not care for the Federal Government having another control on my life. Leave it to the States and the people that vote in them to fix their own. Sorry guys, but we already are doing well down here in the Mid South and the Southeast, and most of the country. Mixing in the Feds probably wouldn't help anything. People in a state are the only ones who have a say on who governs that state. I can't vote against anyone in another state.
|
It's not interfering with how a state wants to treat its own residents at all.
It just means that if your state allows concealed carry that I as a resident with a concealed carry permit from another state can cary concealed in your state, consistent with your laws, limits, prohibited areas, etc.
The only deviations from this are protections to ensure that concealed carry on federal lands and national parks is not restricted for non residents by state law, and that state specific restrictions on magazine capacity or bullet types don't apply to non residents.
What this will do is prevent states from opting in and out of reciprocity agreements with other states on a more or less random basis, making it very difficult for people to stay current on where they can and cannot carry. This is very consistent with the intent and function of Title 18 and is in effect an extension to concealed carry of the safe passage provisions that have been around since 1986.
If you are opposed to this bill, then you are opposed to the concept of reciprocity in general, as well as the safe passage provisions of 18 USC § 926A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISCS Yoda
There are two or three sides to this.
1. The gun lobby wants it. The concept is that a national law with national standards forces everyone to play by the same rules. I really can't imagine that happening, NY, Chicago/IL, CA, etc., just will simply not allow it if there is a way to prevent it. But the concept is there, just the same.
That's not what this is about at all. Nothing in this law requires a state to change anything about it's concealed carry laws. If a state chooses to ban concealed carry for its residents, it will remain banned for non residents. If a state chooses to limit concealed carry in various areas, those limits remain in effect for non residents.
only exceptions are related to concealed carry on federal lands and nullification of magazine capacity and hollow point restrictions for non residents - they will still apply to residents of that state.
2. There is a real issue with respect to the rights of the Federal government to interfere with the ability/rights of the several states to make their own SCOTUS permitted "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. A very thorny legal issue.
Read what posted above. The only exceptions to the state's authority to regulate conclude carry in the state are related to concealed carry on federal lands and nullification of magazine capacity and hollow point restrictions for non residents - and those restrictions will still apply to residents of that state.
This law changes nothing regarding how a state regulates the right to keep in bear arms for its own residents, and if it bans or restricts concealed carry in any way (except the two exceptions above) those restrictions also apply to non-residents.
The only substantive effect this will have will be in states like MD where concealed carry is allowed for residents but is calm,most impossible for a resident to obtain as he or she must show a specific need for concealed carry and that's high bar to meet and somewhat inconsistent.
For example, an acquaintance of mine got a concealed carry permit after he was threatened prior to testifying in a criminal trial. However, 3 years later, despite continued threats from the convicted individual, he was denied a permit when that individual was released from prison. Apparently, MD was happy to issue a permit to ensure his testimony, but had no interest in issuing a permit to help him defend himself later. Nice, concerned public officials there in MD...
3. THERE IS A VERY REAL ISSUE with respect to Federal rules mandating this, that, and the other, databases, national registration, etc. Hard right wing thinkers are not overly pleased with this concept.
Absolutely no data base will be required - or allowed to be use. The individual must have a valid identification and a valid concealed carry permit on their person, but that documentation becomes prima facie evidence of compliance with the law.
There is also no federal involvement. It will be local law enforcement officials who will ask for and verify the person is carrying "facially valid" ID and concealed carry permit. This means if the documents appear to be original and valid that is the extent that the officer can dig into the issue. Specifically:
"Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section."
This means no detaining the individual until their home state verifies concealed carry status, no checking of a data base, etc. This is also where the payment of any legal costs and damages to a prevailing plaintiff by the prosecution comes into play - it will forestall any intentional harassment of non resident concealed carry permit holders by states that are not "shall issue" states.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the Congress has the votes to pass it and I think Trump will sign it. Then NY/IL/CA and other states will sue and it will go to the Supreme Court. So let's not expect this any time soon. ICBW......
|