Police chiefs implore Congress not to pass concealed-carry reciprocity gun law - Polidicks

Source: Washington Post https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/132997/e2656dbd-ec2d-42f5-bdb8-1d34d5b00978/chrome_2018-04-19_12-24-05.png The nation’s police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative, sending a letter to leaders of Congress on Thursday opposing a bill that would allow gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state to carry their concealed weapons in all 50 states. The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va. “This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

How can Congress make states respect out of state carry permits? AFAIK Congress only has control over states in regards to federal taxes (the ACA was ruled by the Supreme Court to count as tax) and "interstate commerce". And the method of holding back grant money until states do what they want.

The question should actually be "How can states subvert the full faith and credit clause in specific circumstances": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause 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

Well I assume states recognize other states' driver's licences (just common sense) Guess carry permits should follow the same rules based on that clause.

Yes, but at the same time there was a long debate over other licenses/certificates. Marriage licenses to same-sex couples in massachusetts wouldn't have been recognized in texas, even though heterosexual marriages would be (without having to get remarried in Texas). Fishing licenses in Wyoming have no legal standing in Virginia.

I may be wrong, but I believe police officers are generally in favor of concealed carry and less strict gun laws in general.

"Hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence" my ass. CC holders are not who you need to worry about.

Generally they are, but there's still some out there who are anti-gun, especially in anti-gun states like California.

There is a legitimate argument that mandating CCP reciprocity would essentially lower the standards of all concealed carry to the standards of the most permissive state. Unlike driver's licenses, where the standards across states are more or less the same, there's a very wide range of requirements for a concealed carry permit, from "must not be a convicted felon" to "must personally appeal to the attorney general for a permit". I'm not wholly convinced by that argument, but if a state or city decides concealed carry is too great a risk to allow except for uniformed police or security agents, it seems prima facie absurd to create an obvious loophole like "go pay Arizona $60 and take a hunting safety course". There's also obvious parallels - one must pass a bar exam in a specific state in order to be licensed to practice law there. I couldn't take the bar exam in Alaska and then go be a lawyer in New York - and I have to expect that if anyone was going to find a way to use the Constitution to force states to recognize the licenses and permits of another state, it would be lawyers. That there has not been a single cheapskate lawyer trying to practice law in many states without taking the exam in each, who has been successful, is strong circumstantial evidence that your argument is not widely accepted by the courts. My (non-lawyer) understanding is that the Full Faith And Credit clause is about recognizance, not reciprocity. If I make a contract in Arkansas to, say, rent a vehicle, and then drive that vehicle to Florida, Florida is required to recognize that the contract was as valid as if it had been formed in Florida, and enforce the terms thereof likewise. But if, for instance, the contract would somehow have been invalid in Florida, Florida is not required to judge it by Arkansas's law. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is what they call a "public policy exception" - states are not required to substitute their own laws or regulations with those of another state. Given that understanding, I believe FFaC requires states to recognize that the person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon within the issuing jurisdiction. But that does not oblige them to recognize it as valid within their own territory - although they are certainly allowed to pass their own reciprocity laws, should they choose to do so.

I don't know, I live in California and all the cops I know are extremely pro-gun. The only reason I mention is is because articles like this try to get around actual police officers by saying that "police chiefs" are against this law, as if "police chiefs" are representative of police officers, the people who actually have to interact with concealed carry holders. The position of police chief is also extremely political by nature. It's even an elected position in many cities/counties.

It's also not hard in a nation that probably contains several thousand police chiefs to find several dozen who support your particular opinion and interview them for a news article.

Hunting/fishing permits vary wildly from state to state, and you really need to apply for one in the state you specifically hunt in to know about seasons and tagging. Plus buying a hunting license in Wyoming doesnt contribute to the conservation fund in South Dakota, which is 99% of the reason hunting licenses exist. Like drivers licenses, CC laws dont vary so much between states. For the most part, dont carry in a federal, state, or local government building, dont carry in a school or church, dont take it into a bar, and dont carry in a place with a sign restricting CC. Theres no real reason for a North Dakota CC license to not work in Idaho.

Pretty sure the courts have ruled that its not absolute, like they held that states COULD ignore it in the case of same sex marriage laws

I used Arizona as an example because Wikipedia listed them as issuing permits to non-residents (and I checked them first because Arizona has a bit of a reputation for being the most gun-permissive state). Perhaps their information is incorrect, or I misinterpreted it. Either way, I did state that I did not find that argument wholly convincing, precisely because such a loophole would necessarily be more work than simply carrying a concealed weapon without a permit - the very nature of a concealed weapon makes it difficult to enforce such laws.

Sure, which in my mind is all the more reason for a federal system that requires testing, training, and live fire testing (which most states do). To my knowledge, Arizona and Alaska havent had issues with their notoriously lax CC laws (even allowing CC without a permit) but Im still for a proper standardized permitting process that works on the federal level.

The actual AZ law ( https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03112.htm ) specifically includes "Is a resident of this state or a United States citizen.", as does the TLDR checklist on their website ( https://www.azdps.gov/services/public/cwp ). Maybe do a little research before claiming something is "fabricated" and "can't exist", particularly when there's no reason a state could decide not to require someone to be a resident to get a CC permit (as AZ has proven).

To be fair I think it would be better if a federal license was made in addition to the already issued state permits we already have. Basically, states with more lenient laws can continue to issue permits within their own states, but they may not be valid in other states. However, people would now have an option to take a standardized test which is more strict to apply for a federally issued concealed carry permit. The federal permit requirements would be the same in all states and all states would be compelled to accept the validity of the permit holder’s right to carry a firearm on their person. In regards to the article though, I think those particular police chiefs just don’t want anyone to be armed at all so they can go fuck themselves.

What if a state doesn't want people with concealed carry permits? Or what if a state wants stricter requirements than the federal government? I think the federal government should just stay out of the states' business. If a state doesn't want CCW then they shouldn't be forced to

Police Chiefs and Sheriff's are politicians in the USA, they are elected into power and will enact policies to appease their voter-base.

States shouldn’t be able to deny people’s rights when they’re protected by federal law. Also by strict I meant Massachusetts kind of strict where people have mandatory safety classes and must demonstrate they can use the weapon effectively by passing a marksmanship test before the federal permit would be issued.

I agree, but I think we're a little too late for that train.

That's your opinion. The constitution says nothing about concealed weapons

It is not your federal right to cc.

The exact same thing was argued against gay marriage. You don’t limit individual freedoms which aren’t explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights because that would be stupid. Also I’m pretty sure the Bill of Rights was more of a set of rules dictating what the government shouldn’t be allowed to do. I pretty sure there was also a clause or preamble which explicitly said that individual freedoms were not limited to JUST the specific examples given within the document itself. But considering your history, I don’t think you really want anyone to have a concealed carry permit regardless of how qualified they are. I don’t think having a federally recognized permit which requires one of the most rigorous training and selection procedures in the country (modeled after Massachusetts) in exchange for being able to carry in any state is unreasonable.

You're thinking of the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. IMO, concealed carry is a low-priority issue compared to all the other problems with gun control in this country. If you're creating a sweeping reform of all firearms law, sure, go ahead and standardize concealed carry rules while you're at it. But in the grand scheme of things, this stuff barely matters.

Obviously gun laws in this country are completely broken and don’t make any sense, but since this thread is more specifically about concealed carry permits being a broken mess, I was trying to stay on that topic.

The 14th amendment says All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States which means that laws have to be applied equally to everyone, so if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The constitution therefore protects the rights of gays to get married, but not your right to carry concealed

So let me get this straight. The document which explicitly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” doesn’t actually protect people’s right to bear arms. Bear (as in carry) arms (as in weapons or firearms). I’d say concealed carry would be the most protected use of a firearm under that amendment. You're also missing the point where I said “the whole point of national reciprocity is to make it a federally recognized right”. As in there should be a process available which allows you to exercise your right to bear arms regardless of how anti-gun states feel about it. Right now there is no feasible way to be able carry weapons for protection in every state even though bearing arms is supposed to be a nationally protected right.

Does not say "in your pocket"

If I cannot carry in public in whatever way I choose, my rights are being infringed. It's a startlingly simple concept unless you're actively looking to usurp the 2nd by arguing technicalities. This is like saying I still have my freedom of speech if public political protest is illegal, because I can still shoot the shit with my neighbor about politics without having the drumpfreich throw me in a van. If a right is explicitly stated to not be infringed, yet the citizens in good standing that right was written for cannot practice it in public, something is fucky.