National Carry Law
Rob Huddleston has a link to info on H.R. 4547, which may be a start to national CCW reciprocity. Says Rob:
The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other’s carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Hmm…I wonder if that would thereby also include municipalities (ie…Chicago)
February 13th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Sounds like the federal .gov sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong to me. Even though this is in an area you’d support, I would think this sort of additional encroachment of state sovereignty would trouble you.
February 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Tom, I came close to mentioning that it wasn’t really good from a states’ rights* perspective.
* not code for racism.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
“not code for racism”
Depends whether or not you’re doing a big publicity stunt in Philadelphia, MS when you bring it up, I suppose. 🙂
February 13th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
You mean that HR 4547 would actually apply the 2nd Amendment to THE PEOPLE of all States in accordance with the 14th Amendment? And that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunties of the Citizens in the several States?” (Article IV, Section2, U.S. Constitution) Wow, whatta concept!
I will insist that my Congressman, Bart Gordon, 6th District, TN, who says he is a “strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment” to demonstrate that stance by supporting and co-sponsoring HR 4547.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
here’s the proposed bill…
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109mIxwDK
…and it comes in at a very lightweight approx. 414 words.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Ron W:
If that’s what the bill actually did, I would have little problem with it. The bill’s jurisdictional hook involves the fact that the gun once traveled in interstate commerce. I find this to be repugnant, in terms of Congress abusing its commerce powers under the constitution. Sadly, this doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd or 14th amendment, and everything to do with Republicans/Conservatives abandonining federalism in the name of a result they like.
I’d prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill’s passage.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
I should also say that I would fully support a bill gutting state laws that restricted honest citizens from being armed based on Congress powers under the 14th amendment. I think Congress could also use its powers to regulate the militia to interfere with state laws against the bearing of arms, arguing that it’s vitial for national defense. The latter might be more of a stretch, but given the kind of enemy we’re facing now, I think there’s a good argument.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Sebastian Says:I’d prefer to stay a principled federalist, even though I would be happy with the result of this bill’s passage.
Same here, except call me a principled anti-federalist.