U.S. Senate Nationwide CCW Bill

Discussion in 'In the News' started by GeorgiaGlocker, Jun 6, 2006.

  1. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 1:16

    4,382
    2
    38
    I just saw this on a thread from Glock Talk. Didn't know if anyone else was aware of this. I just copied and pasted.


    Just got this from the VCDL:

    Senator George Allen has introduced S.3275, a bill that would make a concealed handgun or weapon permit valid in all 50 states!

    There are 13 co-sponsors as of now:

    Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 6/5/2006
    Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Thune, John [SD] - 5/26/2006
    Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 5/26/2006

    You can go to the top right corner of the following webpage and be connected to your senator, if you want to drop them a line about cosponsoring/voting for this!

    http://www.senate.gov/
     
  2. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 1:16

    4,382
    2
    38
    Here's the bill that I have also found:


    Here is the text of the bill for those interested:

    A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
    in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed
    firearms in the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
    FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
    amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

    `Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
    firearms by nonresidents

    `(a) Definition- In this section, the term `another State'
    means a State other than the State from which a person holds a
    license or permit described in subsection (b)(2).

    `(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of
    any State or political subdivision thereof, and subject to subsection
    (c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun
    or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
    interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--

    `(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing,
    transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and

    `(2) is carrying a valid license or permit that--

    `(A) is issued by a State; and

    `(B) permits the person to carry a concealed
    firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device).

    `(c) Licensing-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or
    permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed
    firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions
    that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom
    that State has issued such a license or permit.

    `(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly
    permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or
    permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a
    concealed firearm in that State under this section--

    `(A) in a police station;

    `(B) in a public detention facility;

    `(C) in a courthouse;

    `(D) in a public polling place;

    `(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal
    governing body;

    `(F) in a school;

    `(G) at a professional or school athletic event not
    related to firearms;

    `(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by
    that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the
    premises; or

    `(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for Chapter 44 of
    title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
    relating to section 926C the following:

    `926D. National standard for the carrying of certain
    concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Is the Senate Bill different from the House Bill? Here is the text of S.3275:


    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    May 26, 2006
    Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BURR, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


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


    A BILL
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

    `Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

    `(a) Definition- In this section, the term `another State' means a State other than the State from which a person holds a license or permit described in subsection (b)(2).

    `(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and subject to subsection (c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--

    `(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and

    `(2) is carrying a valid license or permit that--

    `(A) is issued by a State; and

    `(B) permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device).

    `(c) Licensing-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

    `(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section--

    `(A) in a police station;

    `(B) in a public detention facility;

    `(C) in a courthouse;

    `(D) in a public polling place;

    `(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body;

    `(F) in a school;

    `(G) at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms;

    `(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; or

    `(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    `926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.
     
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,333
    117
    63
    Cite Authority

    Where in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize Congress to pass a federal law that takes away the police power of the several states to regulate dangerous weapons for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens? This bill alludes to the Commerce Clause power, indicating that if a gun was made or shipped "in interstate commerce," the federal government has the EXCLUSIVE power to regulate who may possess that gun, and how and where it may be carried, for as long as that gun exists anywhere in the USA. I completely reject that line of thinking. All conservatives and libertarians should.

    The only possible source of legitimate authority for bills such as these is the Second Amendment itself, but of course no court has ever interpreted the 2A to create an individual right to carry weapons on a daily basis in public places, and even if it did, the 2A has not been found to be a restriction on state and local laws-- it is only a limit on Federal powers.

    The best we can do, legally, is to encourage Congress to use the INTERSTATE COMMERCE power to temporarily suspend enforcement of state and local laws on a person who is actually traveling in and actively engaging in interstate commerce, so long as that person has a permit from his home state (or some new federal permit) and doesn't carry in one of the places listed in the new federal law (which ought to be narrowed down to just "sterile" areas of airports and courthouses, where metal detectors and swarms of guards ensure that disarmament is not merely a request, but a commandment that is being enforced on the good guys and bad guys equally effectively).
     
  5. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 1:16

    4,382
    2
    38
    After giving this some thought, I don't believe it is in our best interest to have the federal government pass a law that has anything to do with our state issued permits. Don't we already have the right to carry in all 50 states? I see too many traps to this. If Denver does not have to comply with the Colorado CCW law what makes one think that every state isn't going to have their own issues and come with something like Denver did. By the time it runs through the Senate and then the House and then a conference committe, with probable changes, it will look nothing like it started out to be. That is a scary thought. The ten most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I am here to help." Ronald Reagan
     
  6. Montieth

    Montieth Active Member

    1,873
    0
    36
    My License to drive a car is recognized in all 50 states, not because New York has an agreement (which would violate the constutution) with Georgia, but because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    A license issued by one state should be recognized by all other states. Period. Doesn't matter if it's cars, guns, or marriages.

    Section 1. 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.

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
     
  7. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Gunsmoker, I think the 2nd & 14th amendments are better support for the bill than the commerce clause is. There is a split of opinions whether the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, but there is nothing binding on congress to prevent it from determining that it guarantees an individual right. There is no finding by SCOTUS that the 14th amendment applies the 2nd amendment to the states, but there also is no finding by SCOTUS that it doesn't. Again, congress is free at this point to assert that it does. The 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. So, there is a defensible line of logic that congress has the power to pass laws that prevent states from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Note that this logic only works in one direction -- it does not support congressional actions that infringe, or permit the states to infringe, on the right.

    Montieth, I don't believe the full faith and credit clause requires recognition of driver's licenses among the states, in the sense that you use the word "recognition." It does require states to accept the fact that another state has issued a driver's license. So, GA cannot attack the validity of a TN license. It has to concede (if appropriate proof is offered), that a TN license is a TN license.

    What allows someone to drive all over the country on a single state's license is a principle called comity. Comity is a discretionary process by which one government allows someone with some credential from another government to be treated as though the credential were issued locally. Each state has decided to permit non-residents to drive in the state with a driver's license from another state. Notice that I said "non-resident." If the full faith and credit clause really required recognition of licenses, GA could not require me to get a GA license when I move here from TN. GA would have to accept by TN license forever.

    This issue is bound to be debated hotly within a few years, the subject being gay marriage. Say that a gay couple marries in Massachussetts and then moves to GA. The couple files a GA state income tax return as a married couple. GA figures out that they are same sex, decides not to allow them to file jointly, and assesses a deficiency on them. They sue, saying that the full faith and credit clause requires GA to recognize their MA marriage. The state says, "OK, we recognize that you are validly married in MA. But, you aren't in GA." Who wins? I don't know, but I don't think it's a slam dunk for the gay couple.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Gunsmoker, I know you have read my posts on this subject on other boards. I agree that the Commerce Clause does not give this power to Congress. I ask, however, whether you believe Congress has no power to prevent the states from actively interfering with your exercise of rights under the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution?

    When the 14th Amendment was adopted, a stated purpose in its enactment was to prevent the active interference by southern states of the new black citizens' right to bear arms.

    Research it.

    Study it.

    Respond.

    :wink:
     
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,333
    117
    63
    Two Responses

    Regarding "full faith and credit" -- like JRM said, I think that states have agreed to extend driving privileges to people with out of state licenses, based on the assumption that the licensing requirements in all states, while not being identical, are close enough. But imagine a state that gives drivers' licenses to 11 year olds, with no road test and only a 5-question multiple choice book test, and assesses no points against that license for speeding less than 40 mph over the posted limit, and no licenses from that state are ever suspended or revoked for any crime other than vehicular homicide. Do you think the state of Georgia has the power to deny the use of our roads to a person licensed in such a state? I think we do, or we ought to, so long as we did not unreasonably restrict nonresidents' "right to travel" or "right to relocate."

    Socialists would like to see our drivers' licenses become just like pilot certificates-- issued by the federal government and fully preempting state and local laws. The only rules that matter are the FAA's, and if you're okay with them, you're okay.

    MALUM: Yes, I am inclined to agree that the 2A does confer or recognize an individual right to bear arms for personal defense, and that it is a fundamental individual right that states had been denying to their citizens during the Reconstruction period and that the 14th Amendment did "incorporate" the 2nd into it and thus forced state and local governments to respect the 2nd.... but this argument has not had any success in the courts of this land. Not yet, anyway.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Re: Two Responses

    You mean Montana? :D
     
  11. Montieth

    Montieth Active Member

    1,873
    0
    36
    Re: Two Responses

    In effect we have that now with the requirements for operating large RVs. Georgia licenses them as a Class C license. Other states require tests that are applicable to the size of B or A vehicle combinations and include air brake endorsements which Georgia does not. Regardless, other states must recognize a Driver from Georgia with a 30,000 lb Motor Coach towing a 12,000 lb trailer on a Class C license as valid because that's the license that Georgia issues them with. (I'm very much up on all this because I authored the initial forms of SB 27 and SB 28 that my state Senator sponsored on my behalf).

    It behooves the states to have consistent regulations regarding licenses, but unless it's specifically covered by something relating to Commerce, the Feds seem to stay out of it. In my research relating to the FMCSA, I was rather surprised to find that they appear to be the only agency that actually groks what Commerce really is. They even state that if you win prize money as part of the operation of a Class A sized Non-Commercial vehicle (say at a car show), it's only commerce if you're reporting it as business income or if you have some sort of sponsorship involved. Color me surprised when I read that and had it confirmed by one of their inspectors who answered my faxes.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Do you own a Sherman Tank?
     
  13. Montieth

    Montieth Active Member

    1,873
    0
    36
    Tanks are too big for me. Too much weight and too much fuel to transport them. I just own a couple of 'light' (3-7 tons) armored cars. Two of them are in the Atlanta Area. The third is in the UK and will live in Pennsylvania.