Let's take a hard look at this bill. The operative text from section (b) of the bill (as sent to the Senate):
The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
Noting the underlined, let's look at the same text without that exception (the exception language goes to how the States allow its own citizens to be licensed and has no effect upon how the law will be handled with regards to non-residents):
The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations .... that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
What is not in this text, is the prior language authorizing a non-resident licensee to operate as if he held that States least restrictive license. As I already explained, what is not in the text is the prior findings that accept the right to carry in public for self defense as part of the core right, as expressed in
Heller (all of that language was stricken in an amendment - as a substitution - on Nov. 10th, just before the bill passed out of committee). That language was crucial in the operation of the bill.
As it stands, should this bill pass the Senate and be signed into law, any State legislature may pass what could be called a "general license" with any number of restrictions as opposed to a "special license" with many less restrictions.
This bill will harm many of the current cases we have going that seek to have the judiciary to declare that the right to carry, outside the home, for self defense is part of the core right.
Part of the amendment that was added, in the form of a complete substitution, was to have the GAO perform a study, within a years time. The study was to show whether or not the law was effective. That is, can the local police departments reliably get out of State information on permit holders. I can already tell you the results: The GAO will recommend that the Congress create a national database comprised of all State information on permit holders (much like a NICS database), so that local LEOs will have the information at their fingertips.
Not a complete registration of all gun owners, just those that have carry permits.
In sum then, with this bill:
- States may enact levels of carry permits.
- States may assign "visitor" carry to any of the levels of public carry enacted.
- The bill further entrenches the idea that public carry is a privilege.
- Current court cases that deal with carry as a right will be harmed.
- The bill provides the courts with a legislative "out" to find that carry is a privilege, not a right.
- The Illinois cases, Shepard and Moore will be rendered moot (right to carry outside the home).
- Benson will be rendered moot (restrictive licensing).
- Ezell may survive, but it will be much harder to win (ancillary rights).
- Enos will be rendered moot (MCDV).
- Peterson will be rendered moot (interstate travel).
Peruta, Haynie, & Richards will not survive at the Circuit (AWB).- Nordyke will be rendered moot (restricted places).
- It will be many more years before any case may come to the Supreme Court.
- With the GAO study in place, Congress will centralize a registry of permit holders.
- At some point, the Federal Legislature will begin to "regulate" the manner of obtaining permits (direct interference with State regulations).
I could go on, explaining how this bill will effect each and every case we are watching (not just the few I gave as examples, above). In general, by stripping all of the original language from the bill, the legislature has implicitly said that the right to carry in public, is not a right at all, but a mere privilege that can be regulated to any extent, or denied altogether.
This bill is now a Trojan Horse, and the Senate has yet to mark it up.
Those of you that are for this bill will not be phased in the least. You want what you want and you want it now. The hell with the consequences!
Bottom line. Should this bill become law, it will unravel both
Heller and
McDonald in the short term. Perhaps, in the long term as well.
