House Committee takes up NRA-backed concealed carry bill - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — A key House panel is expected to pass legislation Wednesday to expand the rights of concealed carry permit holders — the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority — as part of the first congressional action on gun legislation since this fall’s mass shootings. The House Judiciary Committee will consider the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” alongside separate, less controversial legislation to boost authorities' compliance with the federal background check system. The concealed carry bill would require each state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state — as they would a driver’s license — regardless of different permitting standards. Residents of several states that require no permits would be able to carry their weapons in other states that allow concealed carry, as long as they abide by local laws. It would also allow off-duty law enforcement officers and certain retired officers to carry a concealed firearm in a school zone. [/quote] [url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/29/house-committee-takes-up-nra-backed-concealed-carry-bill/903001001/[/url]

I mean, this really isn't all that unreasonable, every state has to recognize driver's licenses from other states. The carrying in a school zone thing is a bit questionable but the major part of the legislation seems fairly reasonable.

Good. You shouldn't need a fucking encyclopedia to deal with "State A accepts State B's permit, but State B doesn't accept State A's permit, but both states accept State C's permit, and State C accepts neither A or B's permits."

[QUOTE]The committee defeated an amendment by Nadler that would have banned anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the past three years — such as sexual battery, aggravated assault or strangulation — from carrying a concealed weapon in a state where that conviction would disqualify them from carrying in public.[/QUOTE] What good reason is there to allow people convicted of violent crimes to carry concealed weapons??

Are these permits tied to residence in the state or can anyone get a permit from any state so long as they travel there and complete whatever requirements that are needed? If anyone can just travel to the state with the loosest restrictions then this kind of defeats the purpose of having the states issue permits in the first place. I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52933298]Are these permits tied to residence in the state or can anyone get a permit from any state so long as they travel there and complete whatever requirements that are needed? If anyone can just travel to the state with the loosest restrictions then this kind of defeats the purpose of having the states issue permits in the first place. I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.[/QUOTE] I know many people with a CCW permit and I've never heard of someone going out of state for one. If your local police chief told you no it's highly unlikely you can show up somewhere you don't live and get one from their police chief. They don't just hand the things out.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52933268]What good reason is there to allow people convicted of violent crimes to carry concealed weapons??[/QUOTE] I'm pro-gun, and I support that kind of gun control. What the hell. [editline]29th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52933298]Are these permits tied to residence in the state or can anyone get a permit from any state so long as they travel there and complete whatever requirements that are needed? If anyone can just travel to the state with the loosest restrictions then this kind of defeats the purpose of having the states issue permits in the first place. I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.[/QUOTE] Depends. When took the class for mine, the instructor told us we could also apply for a Florida CCL and have permission to carry in even more states than if we just had our own state's CCL. If it means anything, I live in Illinois, nowhere near Florida.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52933298]Are these permits tied to residence in the state or can anyone get a permit from any state so long as they travel there and complete whatever requirements that are needed? If anyone can just travel to the state with the loosest restrictions then this kind of defeats the purpose of having the states issue permits in the first place. I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.[/QUOTE] So? What about the people that live in states like California or New York, D.C. etc. where it's almost impossible to get a permit unless you have connections. I can't get one where I live because I need 3 "Character witnesses" to give letters and I don't have any friends or any of the sort to do said letters. So if you have no life, you can't be trusted with the right to own a firearm? At least that's how it is in my state. [url]https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0167.htm[/url] read this from the board of firearm permit examiners in my state. In certain states you can be denied for ANY reason at all, including no reason. Chief of Police might just think "People shouldn't be allowed to own firearms." and deny every applicant. Some people claim "BLOOD WILL RUN IN THE STREETS." but states with Constitutional Carry (no permit needed) like New Hampshire, Arizona, etc. do just fine. Seems like most of the gun violence that does occur just so happens to be in cities with extremely strict firearm laws such as Chicago, Bridgeport, New haven, etc.

I'm all for allowing people to own guns, but concealed carry is like a whole other ballpark than just owning a gun. Effectively forcing states to let people concealed carry is pretty bullshit.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52933298]I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.[/QUOTE] God bless America. To answer your question, a majority of states allow non-resident permits, but they don't tend to be as openly accepted as resident permits in terms of reciprocity with other states. A few states don't allow it at all iirc. [QUOTE=elowin;52933414]I'm all for allowing people to own guns, but concealed carry is like a whole other ballpark than just owning a gun. Effectively forcing states to let people concealed carry is pretty bullshit.[/QUOTE] with the exception of the hellhole of the USA, all states already allow concealed carry, so whats your point brosef?

[QUOTE=Dysplasia;52933431] with the exception of the hellhole of the USA, all states already allow concealed carry, so whats your point brosef?[/QUOTE] Exactly what I said. There's not a lot of states that don't have concealed carry permits at all, but quite a few that very rarely if ever actually issue them. Not to mention the possibility of any states clamping down on them in the future.

[QUOTE=elowin;52933414]I'm all for allowing people to own guns, but concealed carry is like a whole other ballpark than just owning a gun. Effectively forcing states to let people concealed carry is pretty bullshit.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't want to do anything as dicey as having some states, uh, respect the constitution, I guess. :v:

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52933445]Wouldn't want to do anything as dicey as having some states, uh, respect the constitution, I guess. :v:[/QUOTE] The constitution doesn't require states to issue or accept concealed carry permits, last I checked. Not that that's even an argument in the first place.

Sweet. I hope it passes. Full faith and credit clause needs to pay to ccw permits. It's high time.

[QUOTE=elowin;52933458]The constitution doesn't require states to issue or accept concealed carry permits, last I checked. Not that that's even an argument in the first place.[/QUOTE] The Constitution protects the right to [B]keep[/B] and [B]bear[/B] arms, two separate concepts, two separate protections. Good or bad, it is an argument.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52933557]The Constitution protects the right to [B]keep[/B] and [B]bear[/B] arms, two separate concepts, two separate protections. Good or bad, it is an argument.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Judas;52933584]its the "bear" part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to concealed carry. There are literally states that don't issue concealed carry licenses, they're not breaking the constitution. The second amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, but it is not an unlimited right, thus it is not the right to keep and carry any possible weapon in any possible manner or for any purpose possible, it does not even have to apply to all citizens.

[QUOTE=elowin;52933458]The constitution doesn't require states to issue or accept concealed carry permits, last I checked. Not that that's even an argument in the first place.[/QUOTE] its the "bear" part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

[QUOTE=elowin;52933583]No, it isn't. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to concealed carry. There are literally states that don't issue concealed carry licenses, they're not breaking the constitution. The second amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, but it is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever or for any purpose possible.[/QUOTE] It doesn't say the right to keep and bear "certain types of" arms in "certain places". It says the right to keep and bear arms. The other part of that is "shall not be infringed". It's pretty unambiguous. I'm not arguing how things should or should not be. I am not opposed to regulations on firearms. Invoking the Constitution is a dangerous path that leads to the Supreme Court, where, under the current panel, the entire fight for gun control will be lost once and for all. There's a reason major anti-gun groups avoid the subject of constitutionality.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52933616]It doesn't say the right to keep and bear "certain types of" arms in "certain places". It says the right to keep and bear arms. It's pretty unambiguous. I'm not arguing how things should or should not be. I am not opposed to regulations on firearms. Invoking the Constitution is a dangerous path that leads to the Supreme Court, where, under the current panel, the entire fight for gun control will be lost once and for all. There's a reason major anti-gun groups avoid the subject of constitutionality.[/QUOTE] You have it completely backwards. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear any possible arms in all possible places in any possible way for any possible purpose. Thus, that is not the right. The right is to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has already established that it's not unlimited in the Heller case. Here's a quote from the judgement. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

[QUOTE=elowin;52933444]but quite a few that very rarely if ever actually issue them. Not to mention the possibility of any states clamping down on them in the future.[/QUOTE] You mean a whole 7 states? Like I said, the hellholes of the USA. It's a non-issue when only a fringe minority of the country is like that, the majority of these states actively erode the 2nd amendment at every turn, so once again, what's your point buddy? That we should kneel to the states right to say Fuck the constitution? Good one.

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52933298]Are these permits tied to residence in the state or can anyone get a permit from any state so long as they travel there and complete whatever requirements that are needed? If anyone can just travel to the state with the loosest restrictions then this kind of defeats the purpose of having the states issue permits in the first place. I can't find a good answer on this, but I did learn that there are a frightening amount of states that don't even require CC permits.[/QUOTE] I live in Canada and I can get a non-resident New Hampshire concealed-carry permit because they consider my Canadian gun license to be "equivalent training," and I don't have to ever set foot in New Hampshire to get it. [editline]29th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;52933458]The constitution doesn't require states to issue or accept concealed carry permits, last I checked. Not that that's even an argument in the first place.[/QUOTE] In a suit brought to the Supreme Court from Illinois, the Supreme Court actually ruled that yes, every state does have to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Illinois was the last state to have no permit system whatsoever, and so they were the catalyst to the existence of such permits being mandatory. So you're wrong, the 2nd Amendment does actually guarantee the right to a concealed-carry permit. There's a court case ongoing in California to have "may-issue" permits deemed unconstitutional, and mandate that every state issue "shall-issue" permits, because all the remaining "may-issue" states are functionally no-issue since the sheriffs just decide arbitrarily to never issue permits.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52933665]I live in Canada and I can get a non-resident New Hampshire concealed-carry permit because they consider my Canadian gun license to be "equivalent training," and I don't have to ever set foot in New Hampshire to get it. [/QUOTE] ... What other licences do they consider training? I'd be tempted to get one as a laugh. [b]Edit:[/b] Ehh, it's like $100 lol. I probably won't as a joke.

Oh god let this pass. Losing the SHARE Act thus far was a massive kick in the balls.

snip

[QUOTE=Dysplasia;52933640]You mean a whole 7 states? Like I said, the hellholes of the USA. It's a non-issue when only a fringe minority of the country is like that, the majority of these states actively erode the 2nd amendment at every turn, so once again, what's your point buddy? That we should kneel to the states right to say Fuck the constitution? Good one.[/QUOTE] As I just established, the 2nd amendment is not the right to own and carry any possible weapon in any possible fashion for any possible purpose by any possible person. States that refuse to issue concealed carry permits are not violating the amendment, just as the vast majority of states aren't violating the amendment by requiring a permit for concealed carry in the first place. Considering your tone I have a feeling you're not actually failing to see my point at all though, but just deny your understanding because acknowledging it would require that you actually considered it. And since when the fuck is California a hellhole of the USA? Since when is NYC, New Jersey and Massachusets a fringe minority?

[QUOTE=elowin;52933711]As I just established, the 2nd amendment is not the right to own and carry any possible weapon in any possible fashion for any possible purpose by any possible person. States that refuse to issue concealed carry permits are not violating the amendment, just as the vast majority of states aren't violating the amendment by requiring a permit for concealed carry in the first place. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;52933665]In a suit brought to the Supreme Court from Illinois, the Supreme Court actually ruled that yes, every state does have to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Illinois was the last state to have no permit system whatsoever, and so they were the catalyst to the existence of such permits being mandatory. So you're wrong, the 2nd Amendment does actually guarantee the right to a concealed-carry permit. There's a court case ongoing in California to have "may-issue" permits deemed unconstitutional, and mandate that every state issue "shall-issue" permits, because all the remaining "may-issue" states are functionally no-issue since the sheriffs just decide arbitrarily to never issue permits.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=elowin;52933711]As I just established, the 2nd amendment is not the right to own and carry any possible weapon in any possible fashion for any possible purpose by any possible person. States that refuse to issue concealed carry permits are not violating the amendment, just as the vast majority of states aren't violating the amendment by requiring a permit for concealed carry in the first place. Considering your tone I have a feeling you're not actually failing to see my point at all though, but just deny your understanding because acknowledging it would require that you actually considered it. And since when the fuck is California a hellhole of the USA? Since when is NYC, New Jersey and Massachusets a fringe minority?[/QUOTE] Wow, it's almost like you're purposely missing my already obvious point, do you need me to speak to you like a child so you'll understand better? Maybe retake your 5th grade English class if you want to talk to adults? 7 states out of 51 is a minority, in case you need to retake your math class as well! [editline]30th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;52933665]I live in Canada and I can get a non-resident New Hampshire concealed-carry permit because they consider my Canadian gun license to be "equivalent training," and I don't have to ever set foot in New Hampshire to get it.[/QUOTE] You don't have to step foot here because New Hampshire doesn't have concealed carry permits anymore.

[QUOTE=Dysplasia;52933788] You don't have to step foot here because New Hampshire doesn't have concealed carry permits anymore.[/QUOTE] They still issue permits for the reciprocity (NH non-resident has something like 20-state reciprocity, the resident permit has I think 30-something).

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52933665]In a suit brought to the Supreme Court from Illinois, the Supreme Court actually ruled that yes, every state does have to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Illinois was the last state to have no permit system whatsoever, and so they were the catalyst to the existence of such permits being mandatory. So you're wrong, the 2nd Amendment does actually guarantee the right to a concealed-carry permit. There's a court case ongoing in California to have "may-issue" permits deemed unconstitutional, and mandate that every state issue "shall-issue" permits, because all the remaining "may-issue" states are functionally no-issue since the sheriffs just decide arbitrarily to never issue permits.[/QUOTE] You're right that it was ruled by a Supreme Court that Illinois had to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Technically it did not rule that concealed carry was a guaranteed right, but whatever. The more important thing to keep in mind is that this is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not The United States Supreme Court, and that other circuits have ruled in favor of May-Issue permits. However, the much more important thing to keep in mind is that a "Shall-Issue" policy doesn't actually mean that the state must issue people a permit. There are still requirements you must fulfill to be issued a concealed carry permit, which vary immensely by state. But under this legislation, every state would have to accept a concealed carry permit from any state including ones with vastly less checks on it. For example, Some require extensive background checks and many require basic automated background checks, while others require various degrees of firearms training to issue a conceal carry permit. Pretty basic common sense restrictions, which are rendered completely moot for anyone who has a permit from a state with lax requirements. And then there's the unrestricted states where you don't need a permit at all, under this legislation if you're from one of those states you're automatically validated for concealed carry in every state.

[QUOTE=elowin;52934020]You're right that it was ruled by a Supreme Court that Illinois had to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Technically it did not rule that concealed carry was a guaranteed right, but whatever. The more important thing to keep in mind is that this is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not The United States Supreme Court, and that other circuits have ruled in favor of May-Issue permits. However, the much more important thing to keep in mind is that a "Shall-Issue" policy doesn't actually mean that the state must issue people a permit. There are still requirements you must fulfill to be issued a concealed carry permit, which vary immensely by state. But under this legislation, every state would have to accept a concealed carry permit from any state including ones with vastly less checks on it. For example, Some require extensive background checks and many require basic automated background checks, while others require various degrees of firearms training to issue a conceal carry permit. Pretty basic common sense restrictions, which are rendered completely moot for anyone who has a permit from a state with lax requirements. And then there's the unrestricted states where you don't need a permit at all, under this legislation if you're from one of those states you're automatically validated for concealed carry in every state.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and some states have stricter requirements for getting a driver's license, but there's national reciprocity for that too. And everyone with half a brain knows "shall-issue" means "If you've met the requirements, the permit will be issued." That's why it's called "shall-issue," is because the permit shall be issued if the requirements are met. Stop being obnoxiously pedantic. "May-issue" states mean that even if you meet the requirements you still might not get the permit, which is bullshit. States with no permits required are called Constitutional Carry states, and there are 13 of them. And for God's sake, if the lack of a permit was ruled unconstitutional, that means that there is a constitutional guarantee to the existence of a concealed carry permit. That's the implication of such a ruling, stop being dense.