Have 'Faith' in the Rights of Gun Owners

[manic mechanic]

This only makes too much sense to me, how's about you?

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/021607/view4.cfm

[Old School]

I am not a fan of a National Carry Law, but I catch his drift...

[jednp]

from the sounds of it though, it wouldn't be a "national carry law". It would just force states to recognize your permits. In individual states, you still would be required to follow their carry rules, where you can carry, and how you can carry. In states that don't allow concealed carry, from what I gather there would be a list of places there like banks, schools, bars, etc. So it wouldn't be a national carry law because states still control where the guns can be carried, and all the laws pertaining to them. They would only have to now recognize your permit.

I'm for this idea 100 %. It's the next best thing to them fully respecting our 2nd amendment rights. Because we shouldn't have to be forced to get permits. We have the right to keep and bear arms. it doesn't say the right to keep and "openly" bear arms. Carry simply means carry, they are not suppose to be able to tell you how it can be carried. But they do, and people have let them for too long.

[TxPete68]

Originally Posted by jednp

from the sounds of it though, it wouldn't be a "national carry law". It would just force states to recognize your permits. In individual states, you still would be required to follow their carry rules, where you can carry, and how you can carry. In states that don't allow concealed carry, from what I gather there would be a list of places there like banks, schools, bars, etc. So it wouldn't be a national carry law because states still control where the guns can be carried, and all the laws pertaining to them. They would only have to now recognize your permit.

I'm for this idea 100 %. It's the next best thing to them fully respecting our 2nd amendment rights. Because we shouldn't have to be forced to get permits. We have the right to keep and bear arms. it doesn't say the right to keep and "openly" bear arms. Carry simply means carry, they are not suppose to be able to tell you how it can be carried. But they do, and people have let them for too long.

+1.

I agree with your interpretation, and think it would be a good thing.

Pete

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by jednp

from the sounds of it though, it wouldn't be a "national carry law". It would just force states to recognize your permits. In individual states, you still would be required to follow their carry rules, where you can carry, and how you can carry. In states that don't allow concealed carry, from what I gather there would be a list of places there like banks, schools, bars, etc. So it wouldn't be a national carry law because states still control where the guns can be carried, and all the laws pertaining to them. They would only have to now recognize your permit.

I'm for this idea 100 %. It's the next best thing to them fully respecting our 2nd amendment rights. Because we shouldn't have to be forced to get permits. We have the right to keep and bear arms. it doesn't say the right to keep and "openly" bear arms. Carry simply means carry, they are not suppose to be able to tell you how it can be carried. But they do, and people have let them for too long.

No state should be forced to obey the laws of another state. This defeats the concept of states rights. I'm against a national carry law. If you allow the federal government to make law in favor of gun owners, then you must allow them to make law against. Be careful what you wish for.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

No state should be forced to obey the laws of another state. This defeats the concept of states rights. I'm against a national carry law. If you allow the federal government to make law in favor of gun owners, then you must allow them to make law against. Be careful what you wish for.

Right on!! I agree. Next thing you know, we will be obeying California's laws. PHOCK that!

[jeepinbanditrider]

The article for those who can't or don't want to look at the link

Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) recently introduced legislation to create a national standard for carrying concealed firearms. Under the bill, folks holding a permit to carry in their home state would be permitted to do so in every state.
Article IV of the Constitution says that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” The Article gives Congress the power to pass laws regulating the effects of this clause.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows court decisions, taxation and extradition to remain valid between states without requiring federal or other legal involvement. Driver’s licenses issued in one state, for example, are valid in all states.
The requirements for obtaining a driver’s license vary considerably among states. In my home state of South Dakota, potential drivers can receive a license at the age of 14 years, while several other states make their teenagers wait until they are 17. While I wouldn’t recommend that a 14-year-old from South Dakota make a road trip to New Jersey anytime soon (or ever, really), it is legal for him or her to do so.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause should be upheld unless there is a massive public interest in a particular law, as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Passed by overwhelming margins in the U.S. House and Senate in 1996, DOMA gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages in other states and prevents the federal government from doing so at all. This situation is a clear example of Congress’ constitutional authority to intervene. No court has ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
The Constitution requires, then, that we properly protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights by allowing them to carry concealed weapons across state lines.
By 2006, 37 states had established “shall-issue” permit laws, which allow anyone seeking a permit to obtain firearms upon passing stated requirements, training or both. Eleven states have some other form of concealed carry, leaving only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., without.
Thune and Nelson’s S.R. 388 is still necessary to ensure that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves no matter which state they’re in. The bill would give concealed-carry permits the same legal status as driver’s licenses, while restricting carry in some locations, such as government facilities, non-firearm sporting events and establishments with alcohol licenses.
Mountains of empirical evidence are crystal clear in showing that gun ownership and concealed-carry laws reduce crime across the board. One of my favorite examples, which I referenced in a 2005 column (“Happiness is a Legal Gun in the District,” The Hoya, Sept. 26, 2005, A3), is the hot burglary rate. “Hot” burglaries are those committed when the victims are at home.
The U.S. hot burglary rate is around 10 percent, but approaches 50 percent in Canada and relatively gun-free countries in Europe like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Estimates vary, but armed citizens prevent somewhere around 2.5 million crimes in the United States each year. Compare this with estimates of annual accidental gun deaths, which range between 1,000 and 1,500. Of course, any accidental death is a tragedy, but a much bigger tragedy would be the 2.5 million crimes allowed to happen if citizens couldn’t defend themselves with guns.
Any rationally formed opinion or public policy should consider costs and benefits as well as judge risk.
In his book “Freakonomics,” economist Steven D. Levitt notes that the risk of a child in the United States dying from an accidental gun injury is one in 1 million (per gun), while the risk of a child dying in a swimming pool accident is much higher, at one in 11,000 (per pool). “Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool accident at Suzy’s house than in gunplay at Rick’s,” Levitt writes.
But which cause do you hear played up more by the media?
Some may point to supposedly scary risks of letting law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms across state lines, but these pale in the face of the clear crime-fighting benefits of doing so. S.R. 388 and its companion bill H.R. 226 are good bills and should receive the “full faith and credit” of Congress.
Eric Rodawig is a senior in the College and a contributing editor for The Hoya. He can be reached at rodawig@thehoya.com. Thoughtcrime appears every other Friday.

[hacker15]

A good idea, but time has run out. This type of law will never get through the current Congress or the Senate. Even if, by some miracle to did get passed, you will find a number of states and localities that will attempt to circumvent the law. California, NY, IL, and (of course) NY City will never recognize this type of law. In the city, NY state permits and CCLs are not valid - you need a special NYC permit or license (almost impossible to get) to carry legally there. Chicago is no better. Washington DC (the "murder capital of the US") is totally off limits.

Too bad - I think it's a good idea (and states rights has been pretty much a dead issue since that little dustup in the mid 1860's).