Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: HR861/S388: Why open carriers should support this CCW bill...

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I posted this over at The High Road on the discussion about the CCW reciprocity bill. My only issue with the bill was with the exclusion of open carry. However, I had a logical thought process go through my head in thinking about it. Though it excludes open carry from the protection, I believe that this bill will actually help open carriers. Here is my thoughts on the subject that I posted at THR:

    Well, you would need only one license for CONCEALED carry. To me that's my only complaint, the bill doesn't cover someone who's visiting Minnesota and carrying on a license not recognized by Minnesota (there are currently 15 states recognized fully for both open and concealed carry), they can only conceal carry, not open carry or they would not be protected from the state law that generally prohibits carry.

    It sort of sucks, however I am not too concerned. The gold star open carry states I don't need to worry about, they have no laws against open carry. The only time I really have to worry about it are the licensed open carry states and the ones that are anomalous (open carry on foot ok, carry in vehicle only with license or no full preemption).

    Any discretionary licensed open carry states (Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, DC, Rhode Island (AG Issue), New Jersey) are either impossible to get anyway, have no reciprocity or recognition anyway, or would just revoke your discretionary license if you open carry. It sucks, but that's the way it goes. On the other hand, the point of revoking someone's license is to threaten their ability to carry entirely, or to threaten their ability to conceal during certain social situations that may not allow open carry. This bill would remove that sword of Damocles that discretionary licensed open carry states have over those who are lucky enough to have licenses from them (for example, they reside in a pro-gun jurisdiction of an anti-gun state, but said pro-gun issuer doesn't like open carry and threatens to revoke your license).

    Shall-issue licensed open carry states, such as Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah, either recognize all out of state licenses, or have reciprocity/limited recognition statute. GA, ND, and MN have reciprocity agreements with either Utah or Florida, so I'm good to go for open carry there if I so choose. The other states in this list already recognize all out of state licenses for both open and concealed carry (a few of the states may restrict their own residents from being able to use out of state licenses).

    The anomalous ones (open carry on foot, license required for car) I can deal with by acquiring a reciprocal license (Florida's a big one) or a license from that state (Good example would be getting a NH non-resident LTCF, or getting a Florida license to cover you in Pennsylvania, or getting a Utah license to cover in Washington State).

    To wit, you have to think of these bills as a "layer cake of protection". If you lose not-withstanding protection by open carrying, you're subject to the state law that you're carrying in. If you have a license recognized by the state you're open carrying in, or have one of the state's licenses, you're covered and don't need the protection.

    Basically, this is to allow you to carry concealed for personal protection in those stubborn anti-gun enclaves like New York, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, DC, and Hawaii who will not bow to the constitution and allow carrying for personal protection. Concealed carry only supporters and even primary open carriers such as myself should support this. This will give the CCW-only folk what they want, and if anyone wants to open carry in multiple states, they can simply get the licenses to be able to open carry.

    Even though I strongly dislike open carry being excluded from the protection, since I'm sacrificing nothing (open carrying will be the same now as later as far as laws and licenses), if this bill passes we would gain the ability to conceal carry across the entire country in every state, and put pressure on the stubborn anti-gun enclaves to shape up. Perhaps in the process, create a few more shall-issue licensed open carry states.

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


    I know some of you might question why I would support licensed open carry. In states like Maryland, there are bills in consideration to make the state shall-issue, all it does is remove the discretion from the state police or issuing agency. It doesn't touch anything else.

    It would be really funny if Maryland does finally go over the top and go shall-issue, for people to start open carrying in Baltimore, Montgomery, or Prince George counties?. Can you imagine the crime rate drop from the news, and seeing a small smattering of people excercising that?

    I believe that we should push for these bills. This would open up more states for us to open carry in the long run.

  2. #2
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Of course it's a good idea to support it, but do you really think it stands a rats ass chance of passing with the Democrats in control? BTW what did the republicans do in their 6 years in control of both houses? There was a national reciprocity bill for civilians that went hand in hand with HR218 for the cops. Never got passed! Thats why I vote Libertarian.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    A privilege granted with the stroke of a pen will be as easily removed by the stroke of a pen. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was won in revolution and is disparaged by these same legislators as their stock-in-trade...just as by the craven NRA.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    Of course it's a good idea to support it, but do you really think it stands a rats ass chance of passing with the Democrats in control? BTW what did the republicans do in their 6 years in control of both houses? There was a national reciprocity bill for civilians that went hand in hand with HR218 for the cops. Never got passed! Thats why I vote Libertarian.
    If you look at the two bills, you'll see that there are two sponsors on both the House and Senate bill: Rep. Stearns (R-FL) and Rep. Boucher (D-VA) on the house bill, and Senator Thune (R-SD) and Senator Baucus (D-MT). are the main sponsors. This is no accident.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    A privilege granted with the stroke of a pen will be as easily removed by the stroke of a pen. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was won in revolution and is disparaged by these same legislators as their stock-in-trade...just as by the craven NRA.
    If HR861 were just repealed by a future Congress it would just leave the state of reciprocity the same as it is now. They don't need this bill to justify passing CCW bans, bills have been introduced in the past to set up a New Jersey style federal carry system.

    I'm sure that the same arguments were made about FOPA's interstate protections, which was passed by *gasp* a Democratic Congress in 1986. I'd rather be protected transporting my unloaded handgun across New York heading to New Hampshire than assauge someone's fear that "states rights is being violated".

    I make most of these arguments on the THR thread. You may read it for yourself.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Connecticut is technically may issue, but in practice is shall-issue. I have a CT license.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    A privilege granted with the stroke of a pen will be as easily removed by the stroke of a pen. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was won in revolution . . .
    Are you suggesting that instead of supporting a bill to grant more liberty we should just start shooting? :shock:

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    Are you suggesting that instead of supporting a bill to grant more liberty we should just start shooting?
    'Support a bill to grant more liberty?' Are you suggesting, Anony Mouse, Esq, by your use of legal jargon that you are an attorney, AND asking such a dumb question?

    A tyrant does not grant liberty, our Creator does that. A tyrant licenses privilege to his favorites, his butt-boyz and NRAss-parrots.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    "Supporting a bill to grant more liberty" is legal jargon?

    This is liberty that is currently non-existent, so, yes, it does "grant" liberty. Concealed carry is, by and large, a licensed privilege. While I agree with your sentiments, one must recognize reality.

    So, are you going to answer my question?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    vermonter wrote:
    Of course it's a good idea to support it, but do you really think it stands a rats ass chance of passing with the Democrats in control? BTW what did the republicans do in their 6 years in control of both houses? There was a national reciprocity bill for civilians that went hand in hand with HR218 for the cops. Never got passed! Thats why I vote Libertarian.
    If you look at the two bills, you'll see that there are two sponsors on both the House and Senate bill: Rep. Stearns (R-FL) and Rep. Boucher (D-VA) on the house bill, and Senator Thune (R-SD) and Senator Baucus (D-MT). are the main sponsors. This is no accident.
    It'll never pass. With the liberals in control, a few token pro-gun Democrat sponsors won't accomplish what the pubs failed to do when they were in control. Those few Democrats can safely sponsor the bill, knowing it will never pass, and thereby pander to their constituency without vastly offending their superiors.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    Are you suggesting that instead of supporting a bill to grant more liberty we should just start shooting?
    'Support a bill to grant more liberty?' Are you suggesting, Anony Mouse, Esq, by your use of legal jargon that you are an attorney, AND asking such a dumb question?

    A tyrant does not grant liberty, our Creator does that. A tyrant licenses privilege to his favorites, his butt-boyz and NRAss-parrots.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
    The 2A protects the right, and legislation to protect it is therefore not required. But since our tyrants ignore the 2A, we need all the protection we can get.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Arlington, ,
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    vermonter wrote:
    Of course it's a good idea to support it, but do you really think it stands a rats ass chance of passing with the Democrats in control? BTW what did the republicans do in their 6 years in control of both houses? There was a national reciprocity bill for civilians that went hand in hand with HR218 for the cops. Never got passed! Thats why I vote Libertarian.
    If you look at the two bills, you'll see that there are two sponsors on both the House and Senate bill: Rep. Stearns (R-FL) and Rep. Boucher (D-VA) on the house bill, and Senator Thune (R-SD) and Senator Baucus (D-MT). are the main sponsors. This is no accident.
    NO bill ever gets through without sponsors on each side, no matter how lopsided. And if you're familiar with them at all, Boucher and Baucus are not exactly terribly liberal people; I could name a dozen republicans in congress that are more liberal than both of them.

    The bill's a nice sentiment, but it's not going anywhere. Especially after Parker. Don't get me wrong - Parker was one of the best decisions since sliced bread, and when it goes through SCOTUS and gets upheld there, it'll be a great day for the 2a. But currently, the dems can justify their failure to act on bills like this, or any other pro-2a bills, by invoking "judicial Activism" by the DC Circuit. That's just how it's going to be - watch and see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •