# Senate to Vote on carrying across state lines



## Monadnock (Jul 22, 2009)

(Except Illinois and Wisconsin of course)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons_3

It's sad we have to fight for what should be an intrinsic right as a human being.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

Monadnock said:


> (Except Illinois and Wisconsin of course)
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons_3
> 
> It's sad we have to fight for what should be an intrinsic right as a human being.



Beware Greeks bearing gifts.  This is not what it seems.  See 'federalism'.


----------



## Satt (Jul 22, 2009)

I get really tired of my "rights" being called "priveleges". There shouldn't even be a permit requirement. Either it's a right or it's not a right. Even if they decided take the right away, at least we would know where we stand. 
(Carrying swords of course  :samurai


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 22, 2009)

Not sure where the Senate comes into this. If the permits are issued by the state, and each state has its own criteria for deciding whether to issue, then shouldn't it be the responsibility of the states to decide whether and how they will reciprocate?

As an example (IANAL), I believe that some states' bar will allow lawyers to register to practice in their state if they hold a license in other states, but may require lawyers from other states to take an exam or something if they feel that that state's standards are lower.


----------



## searcher (Jul 22, 2009)

It all comes down to the Federal Government trying to move in on state autonomy.    They have all gotten their feathers ruffled by some states telling them to push off.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

searcher said:


> It all comes down to the Federal Government trying to move in on state autonomy.    They have all gotten their feathers ruffled by some states telling them to push off.



Correct.  It is up to the states themselves to work out reciprocity agreements.  In some cases, the feds have over-ridden the rights of the states, for example with regard to driver's licenses - each state MUST recognize a valid license from another state, with or without reciprocity agreements.  This is done under the rubric of the so-called "Interstate Commerce Clause."  I don't think they have even that much authority to override state's rights regarding reciprocity.

Is it a good thing that states recognize each other's CCW permits?  Sure.  Is it a good thing that this is established by federal legislation?  Definitely not.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 22, 2009)

Two votes short:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...al-concealed-weapons-measure/?test=latestnews

58 voting "aye," 39 voting "nay."  Since this was a proposed amendment, we needed 60 votes, not 50, and unfortunately, this round goes to the gun grabbers.  

The bill will come up again in the future, though.  With Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) essentially being a lame duck, and with several other anti's on the endangered list, I suspect it will pass in the future.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct.  It is up to the states themselves to work out reciprocity agreements.



Article IV, Section I of the Constitution: "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."

It seems to me that this legislation, as well as the legislation you allude to with driver's licenses (and marriages, contracts, and so forth), should fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause.  Thus, this legislation wouldn't be a power grab - it would be Constitutional.


----------



## zDom (Jul 22, 2009)

The thing is some states, such as Illinois, are real boogers when it comes to firearms.

I've heard horror stories about LAW ENFORCEMENT officers having legal (in the rational states, at least) firearms confiscated while passing through Illinois.

Don't think this is a problem? Here is a real-life example:

I live in southeast Missouri and my family has a cabin in Kentucky near Kentucky Lake. So, (might want to pull up a Google map to see how this all fits together: pull up Wickliffe, Ky.) to get from Missouri to Kentucky, without going hundreds of miles out of my way to cross the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, I have to drive about 300 yards through Illinois.

According to my research:

United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or
    regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any
    person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from
    transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to
    transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he
    may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place
    where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during
    such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the
    firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible
    or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such
    transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle
    without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the
    firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container
    other than the glove compartment or console.

Layman's Translation

If you are transporting a firearm from one state to another (which places it under federal control through the often abused Interstate Commerce Clause), you are protected from anti-gun possession statutes in the states you will be passing through if you follow the requirements of the law.

These requirements are:
It must be legal at the state and local level for you to possess and transport the firearm at the locality in the state where your journey originated.
It must be legal at the state and local level for you to possess and transport the firearm at the locality in the state where your journey is going to end.
You must be on an uninterrupted journey through any intervening anti-gun state and not be making any stop there that would make it a destination.
The firearm must be unloaded
The firearm & ammunition must be in a trunk OR if the vehicle has no trunk, in a LOCKED container other than the glove box or console.



Which means I have to pull over to the side of the road, unload my firearm, lock it in the truck, drive for five minutes to the next state line, then retrieve and reload my firearm.

Ironic sidenote: the only place between my home and the cabin that I feel unsafe is in southern Illinois, especially Cairo!

According to a quick search, Cairo's crime index in 2007 (most recent shown) is 944.7 with higher being more crime and the national average being 320.9.

So, the ONE place I'm most likely to NEED it, is the ONE place I am NOT allowed to have it accessible!

God help me if I get a flat or other vehicle failure in that five minute drive through Illinois: Risk rape, robbery, murder of my girlfriend or self? Or risk losing my $600 firearm to an Illinois LEO?

And how does this protect ANYBODY? Do they really think the local gangstas making their drug runs between Chicago and Charleston, Mo., are complying with their lock 'em up legislation?

THAT is why I was really, really hoping Congress would pass the CCW recipocrity legislation.

"Gun control victory" and "This was a narrow escape" are on the CNN crawlers as I type this. Morons.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 22, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Article IV, Section I of the Constitution: "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."
> 
> It seems to me that this legislation, as well as the legislation you allude to with driver's licenses (and marriages, contracts, and so forth), should fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Thus, this legislation wouldn't be a power grab - it would be Constitutional.


 
That's assuming we still operate under a constitutional government. 

It doesn't matter though...just heard it did not pass. Sorry truckers! Maybe next time.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 22, 2009)

searcher said:


> It all comes down to the Federal Government trying to move in on state autonomy.    They have all gotten their feathers ruffled by some states telling them to push off.


That's the issue I've got with it -- and why I'm glad it didn't pass.

It's not a federal issue.  It's a state issue -- and I don't like the federal government usurping state issues.  

Considering that different states have vastly different requirements for issuing and maintaining gun permits, I don't like the idea of someone carrying across state lines unless the two states have agreed to recognize the permit.  Virginia became a "shall issue" state because every county was issuing permits differently; in one, there was only one issued in a several year period, while in another, if you asked the sheriff, you got one (unless you pissed him off).  The "shall issue" law defined the criteria, and put everyone on the same footing across the state.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jul 22, 2009)

Zdoom

I live in Illinois and have a gun in my truck at all times. We have two codes here, the wildlife code and the state "law"
All you need to be in legal transport of a gun in Illinois is 
Unloaded in a case, you can have a loaded mag in the case with the gun, just not in the gun. Nothing in the law about locked up, nothing about out of reach, mine sits on the passenger seat. 
Our gun laws are up there with the worst in the nation thats for sure but I thought this info would be of some help to you.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 22, 2009)

Personally I'm a Vermont Carry fan. While I teach CHL classes, I actually feel as long as you clean record, then you can own and carry whatever you wish, concealed or uncondealed (although I prefer concealed.)

Funny how liberals push for 'motor voter' laws with no ID needed to vote (and I think voting is a very grave responsiblity), yet want all kinds of laws against weapons in general and guns in particular. Lots of IDs, registration, and limits... but no limits on voting!!

Well, maybe better luck after mid-term elections. The way Obama is screwing up, we might have a Republican Congress in a year and a half!

Deaf


----------



## zDom (Jul 23, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Zdoom
> 
> I live in Illinois and have a gun in my truck at all times. We have two codes here, the wildlife code and the state "law"
> All you need to be in legal transport of a gun in Illinois is
> ...



But do you have, what is it? A FOID? Those are only for Ill. residents and are not issued to non-residents  so they may be a bit stricter for me than you.

Also, the advice I've read about Ill. is to err on the side of caution rather than risk having a firearm confiscated.


----------

