Contact your representative now for ccw
- Thread starter Daugherty16
- Start date
Aguila Blanca, for what it's worth, my Professional Engineer license is not valid in most other states. I can apply for a PE license in other states either by taking a test or demonstrating that Idaho's standards meet those states' standards. But my Idaho license does not allow me to practice as a Professional Engineer in any state other than Idaho. Each state sets its own standards.
I'm not an expert on other professional licenses, but as far as I know, unless there is some sort of reciprocity agreement that has been negotiated between states, one state's professional license is not valid in another state.
Initially, I was in favor of this bill, but the more that I think about it, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong - I would very much like my Idaho CCW permit to be valid anywhere in the US. And I believe that the states' rights argument that has been raised by most of the opposition is a red herring, primarily because most of the opposition doesn't give a fig about states' rights, but, rather, can't stand the idea of private citizens owning firearms.
But it is an issue of states' rights for the very same reason that my Idaho Professional Engineering license isn't valid in, say, New York. Both states set minimum standards for licensing. As it happens, both states will issue a license to a PE whose state license meets the minimum standard of the other state. Since Idaho's standards are essentially the same as New York's, I could apply for a New York license if I wanted to practice there.
The same thing ought to go for CCW permits (but, I suppose, without the need for 49 different licenses). And, right now, that's the standard. As it happens, my Idaho CCW permit isn't valid in most states, primarily because there is no ready access to a database of license holders. If that's the standard that other states require for my license to be valid, then that's their right to insist upon.
Now, I understand that, as a citizen of the United States, I have a right to keep and bear arms. I also understand that it is not an unlimited right - the various governments can regulate it to a certain degree. So, at least in my mind, the national standard that has been set is that there is a right to own and carry a firearm. The means of ownership and the means of carry are not explicit and, just as one size of clothing doesn't really fit all, one size of firearms legislation does not suit the entire country. Thus, much as I don't like the fact that I cannot carry a concealed weapon in most states with my Idaho CCW permit, I respect the fact that other states have different standards for allowing concealed carry that are stricter than those of mine (as long as they don't fly in the face of the Constitution.)
By the way, you're all invited to Idaho. My state recognizes ever other state's permits.
I'm not an expert on other professional licenses, but as far as I know, unless there is some sort of reciprocity agreement that has been negotiated between states, one state's professional license is not valid in another state.
Initially, I was in favor of this bill, but the more that I think about it, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong - I would very much like my Idaho CCW permit to be valid anywhere in the US. And I believe that the states' rights argument that has been raised by most of the opposition is a red herring, primarily because most of the opposition doesn't give a fig about states' rights, but, rather, can't stand the idea of private citizens owning firearms.
But it is an issue of states' rights for the very same reason that my Idaho Professional Engineering license isn't valid in, say, New York. Both states set minimum standards for licensing. As it happens, both states will issue a license to a PE whose state license meets the minimum standard of the other state. Since Idaho's standards are essentially the same as New York's, I could apply for a New York license if I wanted to practice there.
The same thing ought to go for CCW permits (but, I suppose, without the need for 49 different licenses). And, right now, that's the standard. As it happens, my Idaho CCW permit isn't valid in most states, primarily because there is no ready access to a database of license holders. If that's the standard that other states require for my license to be valid, then that's their right to insist upon.
Now, I understand that, as a citizen of the United States, I have a right to keep and bear arms. I also understand that it is not an unlimited right - the various governments can regulate it to a certain degree. So, at least in my mind, the national standard that has been set is that there is a right to own and carry a firearm. The means of ownership and the means of carry are not explicit and, just as one size of clothing doesn't really fit all, one size of firearms legislation does not suit the entire country. Thus, much as I don't like the fact that I cannot carry a concealed weapon in most states with my Idaho CCW permit, I respect the fact that other states have different standards for allowing concealed carry that are stricter than those of mine (as long as they don't fly in the face of the Constitution.)
By the way, you're all invited to Idaho. My state recognizes ever other state's permits.
youngunz4life
New member
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/USCongressConcealed-Weapons-apx-11172011
today's national news linked above.
if and when it passes senate, I think Obama will ignore it(which is the same as a veto virtually after about a couple weeks).
notice the ones against it are lawmakers from NY and the ones for it are AZ pro gun people.
It is really pretty simple, I have done a ton of stuff my wife was against and then she definately was glad after-the-fact. the same goes here for all the nay-sayers when it passes someday. You'll just have to deal with it.
If you get a CCW in your Home State then you are covered throughout US. States tried to stop LEOSA...they fought a really bad losing battle. That law is very simple and the same would go for here. You think the states are cutting the LEOs a break? No, the law covers them in the very small wordage it has.
Now Illinois and places like NYC or Hawaii you might be screwed, but one thing at a time. The law isn't going to make it harder for someone in VA, AK, TX, etc to CCW. It will open the door and allow these people to travel without the headache. After all, we are "one nation..."
today's national news linked above.
if and when it passes senate, I think Obama will ignore it(which is the same as a veto virtually after about a couple weeks).
notice the ones against it are lawmakers from NY and the ones for it are AZ pro gun people.
It is really pretty simple, I have done a ton of stuff my wife was against and then she definately was glad after-the-fact. the same goes here for all the nay-sayers when it passes someday. You'll just have to deal with it.
If you get a CCW in your Home State then you are covered throughout US. States tried to stop LEOSA...they fought a really bad losing battle. That law is very simple and the same would go for here. You think the states are cutting the LEOs a break? No, the law covers them in the very small wordage it has.
Now Illinois and places like NYC or Hawaii you might be screwed, but one thing at a time. The law isn't going to make it harder for someone in VA, AK, TX, etc to CCW. It will open the door and allow these people to travel without the headache. After all, we are "one nation..."
Next if this passes it will be all current issuing states will have to test exactly alike for CCW. It will also negate SCOTUS from intervening in 2nd amendment cases. No need to do so with national carry. I personally do not have a problem with the 33 states that honor my FLA permit. It will not do me any good in IL. DC, NYC, NJ, CA and most probably most of the north east.
In closing I hope it fails/stalls in the Senate.
In closing I hope it fails/stalls in the Senate.
That's only the case if Congress adjourns within ten days after the bill is passed. If Congress is still in session at the ten day point and the President has not signed the bill, it becomes law. The former is called a pocket veto and there's a pretty lively history of its use, going back to Lincoln.
Amendment 10 was attached to have a GAO study done, after it's law, for recommendations(I assume) regarding verification procedure/effectiveness.
http://repcloakroom.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269102
http://repcloakroom.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269102
youngunz4life
New member
I wanted to fix my own statement. You might be screwed if you're from these states as it an be extremely hard or impossible(Illinois) to get a CCW in these states. That isn't gonna stop me from carrying in Hawaii when I visit though or stop the Dad from carrying in NYC when his daughter gets married, etc, etc
youngunz4life
New member
Hardcase
Thanks for clarifying
I do know one tidbit about Johnson who became President by default when Lincoln was murdered. He had the most vetoes in history if I am not mistaken.
Thanks for clarifying
I do know one tidbit about Johnson who became President by default when Lincoln was murdered. He had the most vetoes in history if I am not mistaken.
youngunz4life
New member
at the moment, Don, but when this bill eventually passes I will be able to travel to any state in America except Illinois if I have a valid CCW from my home state(which I do). That is the point of this bill.
Now I suppose places like Hawaii(where it is virtually impossible to get a CCW even though they have laws on the books allowing it+allowing people to apply), can just follow Illinois' example and strip CCW rights altogether. I don't think I am missing something with this bill, but please let me know if I am. It is clear and basically most opposition is just "scared" of change? You probably read the bill Don, but I think maybe others have no clue what it even says....
....but then again, why would they if they already made up their mind?
Do you really think that DC, NYC, IL, NJ and other cities will just bow down. You need to read the bill. You my be able to carry in NY BUT outside of NYC. All the States will have to do is pass legislation like in NYC. Place that are restricted now will still be restricted if this bill passes the Senate which I hope it does not.
youngunz4life, go to this link and read the replies,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=465836&highlight=hb+822
This link will take you to the govs web sight so you can read the bill,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822: or just read it here,
As Tom has stated on and earlier thread all a state has to do to mute this bill is stop issuing CCW permits and then the law is useless. Like I said we are better off without it.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=465836&highlight=hb+822
This link will take you to the govs web sight so you can read the bill,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822: or just read it here,
As Tom has stated on and earlier thread all a state has to do to mute this bill is stop issuing CCW permits and then the law is useless. Like I said we are better off without it.
Last edited:
youngunz4life
New member
I'm reading your post...my CCW from my home state would allow me to carry in NYC. It isn't against the law for NYC residents to carry in NYC if you get a permit. Therefore, by law, my CCW would be legally acceptable in NYC, Hawaii, NJ, etc. These states make exercising your 2nd amendment and CCW rights Very Difficult.
I would still have to follow state laws such as 'must notify if pulled over' depending on the state, and other CCW laws. None of these laws would say I couldn't carry in the state I visit. That is their business with their own residents, and I think some people are gonna be a little fed up w/their congressmen & women if joe schmo can carry in there home state while visiting yet the law abiding home state residents who pay taxes are finding it nearly impossible to do the same thing.
Go on www.handgunlaw.us and read the LEOSA segments of different states with NJ and Hawaii being the main examples. They were not happy with LEOSA; NJ's governor tried to basically nudge all NJ agencies into not allowing these LEOs to carry off duty. It went nowhere. Obviously a LEO would follow the agnecy's protocol with which he is affiliated, but even if he didn't: by strict law he/she is covered by LEOSA.
When the bill passes people will get on with their lives. Some crazy, major shift isn't going to occur as these people have other things on their mind. The ones that try will only be dealing with their home state's residents anyways so how does that affect me when my state respects my CCW rights? In short, it doesn't. Worse case scenario, I have more CCW rights nationally than before the bill was passed anyways.
I would still have to follow state laws such as 'must notify if pulled over' depending on the state, and other CCW laws. None of these laws would say I couldn't carry in the state I visit. That is their business with their own residents, and I think some people are gonna be a little fed up w/their congressmen & women if joe schmo can carry in there home state while visiting yet the law abiding home state residents who pay taxes are finding it nearly impossible to do the same thing.
Go on www.handgunlaw.us and read the LEOSA segments of different states with NJ and Hawaii being the main examples. They were not happy with LEOSA; NJ's governor tried to basically nudge all NJ agencies into not allowing these LEOs to carry off duty. It went nowhere. Obviously a LEO would follow the agnecy's protocol with which he is affiliated, but even if he didn't: by strict law he/she is covered by LEOSA.
When the bill passes people will get on with their lives. Some crazy, major shift isn't going to occur as these people have other things on their mind. The ones that try will only be dealing with their home state's residents anyways so how does that affect me when my state respects my CCW rights? In short, it doesn't. Worse case scenario, I have more CCW rights nationally than before the bill was passed anyways.
youngunz4life
New member
Don
I just saw your follow-up post. I will check it out.
I mentioned the CCW state reversal thing eralier. That is sort of what I was getting at about the "major shift, craziness" at the end of my last post. I firmly believe this will not happen but there are ways around that if some try.
They bowed down to LEOSA and it was the last thing they wanted to do. LEOSA took decades to pass.
I just saw your follow-up post. I will check it out.
I mentioned the CCW state reversal thing eralier. That is sort of what I was getting at about the "major shift, craziness" at the end of my last post. I firmly believe this will not happen but there are ways around that if some try.
They bowed down to LEOSA and it was the last thing they wanted to do. LEOSA took decades to pass.
As was stated during debate, it may motivate some states (like California), to emulate Illinois if they want any control over who is allowed to carry in their state.
It really sucks to hear the state that I live in mentioned so so so so many times as "the only state which does not allow concealed carry permits."
It really sucks to hear the state that I live in mentioned so so so so many times as "the only state which does not allow concealed carry permits."
American Made
New member
My American rights should trump CT rights. If a state acts unfairly, then it is the duty of the federal government to step in and rectify that.
---------------------------------------------------------
When this Country was founded, the States and the "people" were the same. The people made up the States and the States formed the United States.
James Madison addressed where the power resides.[Federalist 45]:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
I am reminded of how the term "state" was used in discussions about the Constitution and our government. Madison said the following in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions:
The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution," or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection.
It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies [states], in their highest sovereign capacity.
Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.
The states and the people of the individual states, never surrendered their sovereignty. They delegated aspects of it to their agent, the central government. That is what the Tenth Amendment is about as well.
---------------------------------------------------------
When this Country was founded, the States and the "people" were the same. The people made up the States and the States formed the United States.
James Madison addressed where the power resides.[Federalist 45]:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
I am reminded of how the term "state" was used in discussions about the Constitution and our government. Madison said the following in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions:
The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution," or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection.
It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies [states], in their highest sovereign capacity.
Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.
The states and the people of the individual states, never surrendered their sovereignty. They delegated aspects of it to their agent, the central government. That is what the Tenth Amendment is about as well.
Clarification of Points in Contention
So far, it seems that there have been a few friendly arguments between various members on this forum. In an effort to clarify, I'm listing what seems to me to be the salient points everyone is talking about in the hopes that we can at least get some answers to a few key issues.
--Does the full faith and credit clause apply in this situation?
--Are drivers licenses recognized by other states through their own volition, or did Congress mandate that the states must do so?
--Will passage of this bill actually hurt anyone, cause states such as CA and NY to regress in gun-owners rights legislation?
--What is the proper role of Congress? What is the proper role of SCOTUS? Are these different, and where do the lines fall?
I have to run but hope to explore some of these issues a little bit in order to provide some clarity on a few points that haven't been fully addressed. I still don't have the answer to some of these, especially issues relating to drivers licenses. Does anyone else know?
So far, it seems that there have been a few friendly arguments between various members on this forum. In an effort to clarify, I'm listing what seems to me to be the salient points everyone is talking about in the hopes that we can at least get some answers to a few key issues.
--Does the full faith and credit clause apply in this situation?
--Are drivers licenses recognized by other states through their own volition, or did Congress mandate that the states must do so?
--Will passage of this bill actually hurt anyone, cause states such as CA and NY to regress in gun-owners rights legislation?
--What is the proper role of Congress? What is the proper role of SCOTUS? Are these different, and where do the lines fall?
I have to run but hope to explore some of these issues a little bit in order to provide some clarity on a few points that haven't been fully addressed. I still don't have the answer to some of these, especially issues relating to drivers licenses. Does anyone else know?
No. Or I should say, not anymore, if ever.
It is through their own volition, for the most part, via the Drivers License Compact, which is financed by the Federal government. Not all states are members - reciprocity is not universal.
Maybe. One could make a case both ways.
Congress legislates, the Judiciary evaluates the Constitutionality of that legislation (which is a gross oversimplification.)
The driver's license thing is interesting because the assumption is that your driver's license is good around the country. That's not necessarily so, from what I've read. If a state is not a member of the DLC, they are not obliged to recognize your driver's license. What does that mean? In the case of Nevada, for instance, not much. Although not a signatory, they'll accept your license. In another state (whose name escapes me at the moment), they may seize your license unless you post a bond. I suppose that it's at the officer's discretion.
Anyway, all of the debating about driver's licenses in the House was interesting because what universality there is is a result of the states working together to achieve it. And it's not perfect.
The last thing I want is the federal government messing with my gun rights any more..... Yes I would love to be able to CCW in all 48 states and the two havens of "all guns are evil". The problem is we already have plenty of federal gun laws like the freedom restricting and denying NFA which is really a tax plus rights denial tool.
I dont need any more of these laws, we have too many laws and theres hardly a thing you can do on a daily basis that isnt regulated in one way or another and yet most people dont realize it.... You cant hardly get out of your bed and tie your shoes without violating a federal law... Im not making it up its all too true.
so to stay on point I simply dont want or need these jokers in my gun rights any more than they have already deprived me of my freedoms...
We are a nation of laws.... not of freedoms...
I dont need any more of these laws, we have too many laws and theres hardly a thing you can do on a daily basis that isnt regulated in one way or another and yet most people dont realize it.... You cant hardly get out of your bed and tie your shoes without violating a federal law... Im not making it up its all too true.
so to stay on point I simply dont want or need these jokers in my gun rights any more than they have already deprived me of my freedoms...
We are a nation of laws.... not of freedoms...
Last edited: