Every state recognizes the absolute right of its citizens to use deadly force when confronted with an immediate threat to their lives or those of their loved ones. Most states, starting with Florida twenty-five years ago, re-visited their concealed carry statutes giving practicality to this agreed upon right. After all, what value is there in having a right (self-defense) in theory if the state effectively denies you the very means to enforce that right?
The approaching firearm debate faced by the next Congress and president (elected or re-elected), is legislation authorizing a person to carry a concealed handgun in any state in accordance with the restrictions of that state if they could possess or receive a firearm under federal law and they have a valid license or permit to carry from any state. The National Reciprocity act, (H.R. 822) overwhelmingly passed the current House of Representatives by 272 to 154 with forty-three Democrats joining 229 Republicans last November. It has majority support in the Senate, but not quite enough for a cloture vote and has been held up till after this election.
The opponents of National Concealed Carry have pointed out a number of problems with the current bills which need to be addressed so Americans can travel across their own country with the means to defend themselves in a rational, legitimate, safe and justifiable manner. States laws on concealed carry run the gamut from Vermont (Montana, Alaska, Arizona), where any adult may lawfully carry a concealed handgun without a state-issued carry license (so long as their possession and intent is legal), to Illinois where no civilian can obtain a license because the law simply doesn't provide the lawful means to enforce one's inalienable right to life and liberty at the hands of violent predatory pond scum.
As currently written, neither H.R. 822 nor its Senate companion bill, S.2213, passes the probative and workable test for interstate carry, legal administrative oversight and application. Now that I've managed to tick off both sides of this debate, let me explain the problems and propose some (hopefully) useful solutions.
We at the Independent Firearm Owners Association believe that all adult citizens who are neither violent criminals nor mentally deranged psychopaths should be able to obtain a license to carry which would be generally valid from sea to shining sea.
This license would in effect become an enhanced federal carry permit. It can and should be issued by state authorities once the applicant meets a recognized standard currently in force in several "shall issue" states such as Texas and Virginia. The applicant should be competent in of how to operate a handgun, familiar with the basic rules of gun safety and hold a fundamental understanding of the laws of "deadly force" as well as how they may differ from state to state.
The NRA offers an excellent course entitled "Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home." They describe it as "... a nine-hour course and offers the essential knowledge and skills that must be mastered in order to carry, store, and use a firearm safely and effectively for personal protection outside the home." This course or its equivalent provides a sound basis for interstate concealed carry. In truth, most people who legally carry personal protection firearms now have far more training than the basics I've outlined and if they don't -- they should but that's a state issue better decided locally!
Another concern of the legislation is that law enforcement would have no way of knowing that an out-of-stater has a valid permit. Thankfully the Internet provides an easy solution. Any person who obtains their Federal Enhancement to their state license will have their name, license and expiration date entered by the CLEO (chief law enforcement officer) or designee of the state of issuance into the database. Nothing in this proposal would change the current reciprocity agreements between states, it would only add to, not detract from the ability of a citizen to carry lawfully in states (or jurisdictions) that don't currently trust their own citizens "may issue" (i.e., NYC, D.C., Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and California).
An additional issue better addressed in separate legislation arises from the legalistic distinctions between "felonies" and "misdemeanors" which vary considerably from state to state. A felony conviction generally prohibits your lifetime possession of firearms, but multiple convictions of serious violent misdemeanors do not.
Why should a person convicted of a non-violent felony, say tax evasion, lose their Second Amendment rights for life, but a violent offender arrested for dozens of serious felonies who manages to plea-bargain them down to misdemeanors does not? We are a pretty bright people; we can devise better formulae for restricting and regaining essential liberties such as firearm ownership than arbitrary and often meaningless definitional code words. This just isn't rocket science and we can apply it across the board prospectively for firearm ownership depriving the opponents of national concealed carry of a problem which we gun owners can intelligently resolve.
Perhaps the final criticism to this concept is that law enforcement groups (mostly big city chiefs) don't like it. Our response is simple, our laws should be written to protect the rights of the citizens -- not make the job of policing easier, (if indeed it would and no evidence exists to make that claim).
If Jim Lehrer does ask the two candidates a question on the gun control/gun rights issue this Wednesday, it ought to be forward-looking and not related to oft debated stale topics of gun registration, semi-automatic assault weapons (sic), Saturday Night Specials that aren't going anywhere. This question sets out new ground with an issue they will have to deal with; "Do you support or oppose National Concealed Carry legislation which would allow citizens to carry a handgun for protection with a state issued permit with federal mandated training standards? Why or why not, and what changes to the current legislation would you require to garner your support?" Over a hundred million gun owners deserve to know what next occupant of the oval office thinks about their self-defense rights before they vote.
What do you think?
Follow Richard Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@IFoAusa
Of course, I'd prefer May Issue laws just get struck down under equal protection or intermediate scrutiny, like they should, but that's a very long game.
"The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. "
Militias are not an indoor sport.
"(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."
Both these sections discuss BEARING arms, as such I think that if the question is raised then the SCOTUS would rule that States would have to allow some form of carry outstide the home.
I say that because of this part of the ruling.
"Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster"
See defense of self is not a at home only thing. People don't loose their 2nd Amendment rights at the door step.
If rational law abiding people are armed they can serve as a counterweight to the irrational and criminal individuals who do not obey laws and try to commit violent crimes.
FYI that does work rather well, FBI statistics backs this up.
He was thinking of the Second Amendment (fourth Article) of the BoR.
You were thinking of Article II of the Constitution itself.
However, gun ownership is a Federal, Constitutional right. Therefore, I think the Federal Government should set a group of standard requirements to which all states must adhere. Then, all states should accept permits issued by any other state.
I think the gun owners in NYC call the permit scheme; The NYPD Retirement Fund. LOL
I do agree with the author, however, that we'd be better off with a more rational set of restrictions based on past convictions. IMHO, a consistent history of violence (including repeated misdemeanor level stuff) or reckless behavior (including repeat DUI offenses) should disqualify people from gun ownership, at least until a substantial amount of time with no further offenses passes.
Example: DUI without any victims or property damage has the potential of both. Public intoxication is illegal as well as drunk and disorderly, again both have a potential for mayham. However the drinking of alcohol is legal. Then to complicate things there is the issues with drug intoxication with both Rx and illegal drugs which breathilizers won't catch.
Then there is the issue of nonviolent felonies. White collar crimes.
Like I said, the devil is in the details.
but I know what ya mean.
If you meet the requirements, you can concealed carry, and the state has no control over it. It doesn't affect state reciprocity, or licensing standards, etc. It just means you have two ways to carry in a state - the state way, and/or the federal way.
With federal right to carry, it could be done rather similarly. If you have a permit from state X, as well as meeting certain requirements, you can carry in state Y. States X and Y could still have reciprocity agreements, issue CCWs (or not) to whomever they want, just like it is now.
It would not be unreasonable to have the federal method have requirements - LEOSA, for example, requires a yearly qualification.
"...shall not be infringed." and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments pretty well tell say that the Government has NOT been empowered to restrict my right to arms.
Often you folks argue that we as a society would safer and better off if MORE people were in possession of a firearm in everyday situations. Would you also advocate for someone with a CCP to legally carry their weapons on ANY form of public transportation and government buildings?
If a person has a permit, then they have taken the time to register with the police, were probably finger printed and had an extensive background checks.
While no system is absolutely 100% perfect, the OVERWHELMING majority of permit holders I will trust with my life.