Senate nixes interstate resiprocity of concealed weapons
 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6541581.html

Missed the 60 votes needed to amend this to an existing bill.

They supported state's rights to define concealed carry, and the rules required for it. I think this was completely appropriate, and I'm actually surprised that 58 senators voted FOR it.


Bill would have allowed a person to carry concealed in ANY state, based on the rules and requirements of their HOME state. So, someone from AZ (almost no CCW requirements) would be able to drive 3 hours East, and walk into a McDonalds carrying concealed, while surrounded by Cali folks who could not.

It would have created severe inequity among people who were carrying, and eventually would have led to all of the CCW laws being normalized to whichever state had the lightest requirements (they would all by proxy have to drop to that level to allow for equality).

It was discussed a bit at my shop today. I gather Schumer and mayor Bloomberg weren't big supporters of the idea.
Jim

Do you even know what the AZ requirements are? You've said this at least twice.

[QUOTE=Pazuzu;4792389
So, someone from AZ (almost no CCW requirements) would be able to drive 3 hours East, and walk into a McDonalds carrying concealed, while surrounded by Cali folks who could not.
[/QUOTE]

What's the problem? When I go to CA I'm surrounded by people who cannot carry concealed. And CA residents are free to get non-resident permits from NV, AZ and UT and then carry in any state that recognizes those permits. BTW, all those states require training, background checks and fingerprints, which is a lot more than anyone has to have to get a driver's license.

So you are agreeing that universal reciprocity does not need to be forced upon states.

No, I'm saying Pazuzu is FOS, not usually, but in this case he is.

However, I must confess I'm torn on this issue at the federal level. I don't see how the 10th Amendment gives states the power to ignore others in the Bill of Rights. If any state said you needed training, fingerprinting, pay a fee and get a permit before you were allowed to write a letter to the editor, criticizing your governor or before you were allowed to join a church, it'd be a 9-0 SCOTUS rulling on the matter. But take that to the right to keep and bear arms and all of a sudden, the gun haters are states rights champions. Strange bedfellows indeed.

The problem is the states have no power to regulate the 2nd Amendment. The Senate coming out in favor of states rights was a smokescreen.

On the contrary, the Second Amendment is the only one where states can pretty much regulate it all they want. Some states require a permit to even purchase a gun, some have gun rationing, like VA, some don't issue CCW's to anyone and some only issue them to celebrities and the well-connected. The right to keep and bear arms is about as trampled upon and ignored as is the 10 Amendment.

Rick, can you carry in CA the way it is now with your AZ CCW?

If I'm willing to lose the gun and spend seven days in the joint. It's a misdemeanor. Otherwise, hell no! CA recognizes no right to self-defense. I just hope if I ever have to defend myself there, I can make it back to AZ or other free states before they catch me.

I don't follow this statement. Please explain the constitutionality of your statement. :)

Nice. So if you ever shoot someone in CA, you hope to flee across some state lines first. Makes sense. :D

Just kidding! Thanks for the clarification.


I understand why you're torn on the issue. Just think, if they did the same thing with "age of consent" laws, perverts everywhere would be flocking to Mississippi to apply for driver's licenses and stuff, so they could bang 16-year-olds in their home state with no reciprocity.

I would never shoot anyone anywhere except to defend my wife's or my lives or limbs. The fact that I'd go to jail for it in CA means I'd not bother reporting it.

I know, man. I'm just messin'.

Jeremy,, could you elaborate on the "banging 16 yo's ? not for me, uhm it's for a friend ,, yeah that's it

Pazazu
Bill would have allowed a person to carry concealed in ANY state, based on the rules and requirements of their HOME state. So, someone from AZ (almost no CCW requirements) would be able to drive 3 hours East, and walk into a McDonalds carrying concealed, while surrounded by Cali folks who could not.

This sounds like you think California is east of Arizona, are you sure?

I don't have a problem with the way they voted, I think it would have caused problems

Well, passing reciprocity for your home state's CCW laws makes as much sense as passing reciprocity for something else, let's say, "age of consent."

So, if you're a MS resident, and the "age of consent" in MS is 16, then. . . .

Oh, wait. Maybe the Girl has to be a MS resident. Or maybe you both do.

Wait, if there's interstate reciprocity for CCW and you have an AZ permit, does the person you shoot have to be from AZ too, even if you're in CA?

Now I'm confused. :rolleyes:

Uhm ok I think I'll stick with Cougars:D

I'm stunned they managed to get 58 votes.

Wow.

You wouldn't shoot someone to stop a rape or a massacre?

I would...in a heartbeat.