Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Texpatriate

New member
Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment
-- Action needed right away!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has filed a pro-gun amendment to HR 980, and it
could be voted on as early as tomorrow!

This amendment would protect the right of citizens to carry concealed
weapons (outside of their home state) in states that allow concealed carry.

Sen. Vitter explains that his amendment does not violate the rights of
states as it "does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor
does it provide for a national carry permit."

In other words, the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws
concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried
shall be followed. "My amendment will not federalize concealed carry
permits but simply requires concealed carry permits to be recognized in
other states that allow concealed carry permits," Vitter said.

This is a real reciprocity provision which grants citizens the "full faith
and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.
Section 1 of this article says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Vitter says that this constitutional provision authorizes the Congress to
pass legislation forcing each state to recognize the "public Acts" of other
states. So if states are not willing to recognize another state's laws,
Congress has the authority to pass laws to require recognition of those
measures.

It's just like with driver's licenses. If certain states refused to honor
the driver's licenses of citizens in other states, Congress could pass
legislation (under Article IV) to require every state to honor all licenses.


ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote for the Vitter amendment to HR
980 to protect the right to carry concealed firearms outside of your home
state.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Please support the Vitter amendment to HR 980. This amendment will protect
the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without
violating the rights of other states. Thus, the Vitter language masterfully
protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment
rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the
border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Vitter concealed carry amendment.

Sincerely,
__________________
--------------------------------------

"COME AND TAKE IT."
 
Okay... So let me be the first to state that the Federal Government has no power whatsoever, to meddle in the licensing of concealed carry by the States.

It is strictly a State issue and a perogative of each individual State to accept or reject reciprocity with another State. Just exactly like Drivers Licenses (Vitter (and the GOA) need to research this a bit. Way back when, the States made compacts (reciprocity agreements) to honor each others Drivers Licenses. The Feds were in no way involved. Then or now).

This is nothing more than an attempted expansion of Art. IV section 1. While well meaning, it could have disastrous unintended consequences.
 
I believe that this law actually does create national standards for concealed carry. Specifically, the state with the least requirements for concealed carry would become the national standard.

I am just fine with my state of Georgia concealed carry license. I don't want Washington mucking around with it.
 
This is an intrusion into states rights IMHO.

It is also something that could easily backfire. I would hate to see states stopping to allow CC simply because they do not want to be forced to recognize out of state permits.
 
So could this idea be used to ban more guns by making pro gun states conform to anti gun states, IE cali laws would be imposed on all of us?
 
This is a states issue, IMO. It is the so-called "slippery slope". If we pro's go down the slope, the anti's will do the same. States rights should prevail.

Also, this is more "big government" intruding in our lives. Even though it sounds good, the Federal government has no place telling us what to do in this regard.
 
I see it as a good thing to make CA, MA, NJ, et al. honor out of state permits. Those states need to be cracked open. I hate to see the feds do it but it's gotta be done.
 
the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried shall be followed.
Click to expand...

This sentence effectively renders the proposed law useless. If an anti-gun state decides they don't want to comply, all they have to do is pass state laws that ban carry in whatever locations they choose.

This law is therefore useless and accomplishes nothing.
 
Although it sounds good on the surface, I think this could open up an unpleasant can of worms. It would be best to wait an see the high court's ruling in Heller. Example, in the appeals court ruling, they said the state may have the power regulate CONCEALED carry of firearms. They said nothing about open carry. If the Supreme Court were to agree to this in Heller or a future case, I think we'll see the anti-gun states start to go must-issue concealed carry, with reciprocity, in order to avoid having a "wild west" image. Maybe I'm over optimistic, but I think that's our best chance of cracking the anti states.
 
Te Anau said:
This is a good bill that I'm quite sure the NRA will oppose for some crazy reason.
Click to expand...
If they do, it will be for the "crazy" reason I've already given you. This is not within the purview of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

I honestly don't understand the viewpoint that some of you hold. You don't like the expansion of Federal power when it's an anti-gun law, but are willing to see it if you think the law is pro-gun.

Expansion of Federal power and usurpation of State authority is wrong, regardless of the intent.
 
So antipitas ... could you expand on that a bit more? I don't know about others here, but I really don't understand the problem with the full faith business. It seems to me to be rather clear:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Click to expand...

Would the issuance of a CCW not be a public act? Why would congress not have specific power to prescribe the manner these proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof?
 
I'm home for lunch at the moment. Don't have time for an extended answer until later this evening.

Short answer: Business Licenses and Drivers Licenses fall into the same category as CHL's. Ask yourselves why the Feds can't control those, and you may find your answer.
 
This is a good bill that I'm quite sure the NRA will oppose for some crazy reason.
Click to expand...

If you consider expanding the power of the federal government a good thing, then yes, it "may" be a good bill. However, if the federal government is allowed to tell us we "can", then they can also, one day, tell us we "cannot".

Think about it.

benign.neglect said:
his sentence effectively renders the proposed law useless. If an anti-gun state decides they don't want to comply, all they have to do is pass state laws that ban carry in whatever locations they choose.

This law is therefore useless and accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would like to add that it also sets precedent that the federal government's power can over-power the states on the issue of CCW. It is a b a d idea.
 
Okay... So let me be the first to state that the Federal Government has no power whatsoever, to meddle in the licensing of concealed carry by the States.
Click to expand...

+ about a million.

It just about enrages me when people who usually opine about holding to the constitution jump ship when its something that benefits them. "Its for the guns" is the parallel mantra to "its for the children". Both are irrelevant where the constitution is concerned.

I'm really disappointed in some of you.
 
It just about enrages me when people who usually opine about holding to the constitution jump ship when its something that benefits them. "Its for the guns" is the parallel mantra to "its for the children". Both are irrelevant where the constitution is concerned.

I'm really disappointed in some of you.
Click to expand...

LMAO over this comment and was wondering when someone would point it out. Just remember that whatever the Feds give they can also taketh away.
 
The Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV section 1) had it's beginnings in early laws of comity (A code of etiquette that governs the interactions of courts in different states, localities and foreign countries - variously called "private international law" and "conflict of laws").

The annotations at Find Law are a good source of how this started and came about. If you are interested, start here and continue to browse the full 13 pages of annotations.

Suffice it to say, that personal contracts, most marriages and most all court proceedings from one jurisdiction are valid in another: Divorces; Custodial decrees; Alimony; Debts; Probate decrees; Adoptions; Garnishments; Criminal judgments, etc.

The exception to this is where one State, by way of policy, does not accept the judgments of another state; Types of marriages comes immediately to mind.

So what is the scope of Congressional power to describe what actions must be recognized by all States? From page 11 of the annotations:
Congress has the power under the clause to decree the effect that the statutes of one State shall have in other States. This being so, it does not seem extravagant to argue that Congress may under the clause describe a certain type of divorce and say that it shall be granted recognition throughout the Union and that no other kind shall. Or to speak in more general terms, Congress has under the clause power to enact standards whereby uniformity of state legislation may be secured as to almost any matter in connection with which interstate recognition of private rights would be useful and valuable.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, Drivers Licenses and Business Licenses do not come under the clause. Why? Because they do not involve rights, but privileges accorded by the State. Concealed Carry Licensing, since it has not been found to be a right (under Federal interpretation of the 2A), but is a privilege that the State may grant or withhold.

Arguing that it is not a privilege, but a right, is to argue against the reality of the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top