• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National CCW reciprocy billmay become real

Sa45auto

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
387
Location
, , USA
imported post

67390FE wrote:
It was suggested on another forum that because my CPL was issued by the county of my residence, it does not have the same guaranties granted under Article 4 Section 1, as my DL which is issued by the state.

I think the thing that those who are against this bill worry about is this. If you put our right to carry on the same footing as a drivers license you are on a slippery slope.

I have heard it argued thusly;

Our right to carry comes from God and is protected by the 2nd amendment. there is no such right to drive a car.

They feel that putting them on the same footing, weakens our right to carry and puts it at risk.
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

So far the proposal only expands people's rights. If the proposal becomes law and Feds try to remove abilities on a national level, they will meet a national response.
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
If this isn't wonderful news, I don't know what is. Keep all your abilities AND gain some back? That's what gun owners are asking for!

In WI we have open-carry without permit, but as detailed in many other threads, there are a lot of restrictions that make it impractical. We can't open-carry in a car because the State considers it concealed. (You can't even be in the car with the keys in your pocket and gun unloaded while you're putting it away, even in the rain.) We can't carry near a school. We can't carry at work in most cases, because most dress codes don't allow for open-carry, and a shirt touching a pistol handle is also considered "concealed." Heck, officials are so insane you can be arrested for concealed carry because a gun is in a holster! (The charge was later dropped, but David Olofson was still arrested.)

If this passes I could actually drive to the store without having to disarm when I got to my car! I could run errands and feel safe! (I could actually be safe.) I could carry to clients offices while driving through not-so-good parts of town (most of Milwaukee) and keep the gun on me, not having to leave it in the car to be stolen.

Granted, the proposal isn't perfect from a pure 2-A viewpoint. The great thing is that if passed into law, I would gain the ability to exercise my rights, the ability so many of you have, and you wouldn't lose anything!

Pointman, I really dosympathize with you over not being able to carry without all the restrictions, but pleaseconsider this... Currently states (which are sovereign) already engage in reciprocity agreements with other states based upon which they think meet the standards for training, etc.. You are proposing that we force those states to accept any and all standards whether they like it or not. There may be non-residents that visit astate and they may havehadsignificantly less red-tape and trainingto go through than a resident of that stateto gain a permit to carry. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would end up becoming a national standard and it would eventually be usurpedby the federal government and our 2nd amendment rights would thenbe taxed. Of course, as I previously stated, I don't think any of us should need a permit to exercise our rights period, but even if I did, I wouldn't support this.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that fact that the legislation doesn't do anything to even the playing field on places to carry, etc.. You can still (and probably would be) legislated into not being able to carry it anywhere anyway, making the forcing of acceptance of CCW permits moot. Because of restrictions that already exist in some states, I would have to buy new firearms and different kinds of ammunitionjust to be able to carry in said locationsdue to magazine capacity restrictions, hollowpointsetc.. Even further than that, you would run into situations where it is next to impossible to get a license to carry in certain states, like Maryland and Hawaii, but they would have to allow non-residents to carry but yet they don't allow their own residents to do so. What about ammunition? It is required to have a permit just to buy and possess ammunition inIllinois. This forcedpermit reciprocityprocess does nothing to curtail suchproblems and it would no doubt cause the anti-freedom states to drum up more of that type of nonesense to fight a bill like this.

The whole thing sounds good on the outside, but the negatives that have been previously mentioned outweigh the potential positives in my opinion. I think it would cause more harm than good in the end.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Loneviking wrote:
Why not? This section has been ruled and used by the Supreme Court for decades to enforce judicial proceedings from state to state. That is the reason for this clause. So, if you win a judgement in Nevada against an individual from New York who harmed you while they were on vacation in Nevada, you could win a judgement in Nevada and have it enforced in New York. It has nothing to do with reciprocity of laws.

If you want to research this clause some more, this is often termed the 'comity' clause.

"public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings"

If it were just related to judicial proceedings, then the previous notation about "public Acts, and Records" would have been unneccessary language. There is no unneccessary language in the contstitution. Every word was well thought out and put there for a purpose.

Every state has to honor every other states driver's licenses. Even if the standards for getting the licenses differ from state to state.

I see no difference with this bill.
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
You are proposing that we force those states to accept any and all standards whether they like it or not. There may be non-residents that visit astate and they may havehadsignificantly less red-tape and trainingto go through than a resident of that stateto gain a permit to carry.... Even further than that, you would run into situations where it is next to impossible to get a license to carry in certain states, like Maryland and Hawaii, but they would have to allow non-residents to carry but yet they don't allow their own residents to do so.
Excellent point. In theory, it could bypass the unconstitutional restrictions placed on California residents because they could get permits from other states. You could too, meaning states would probably reduce red tape and unnecessary fees and such, or risk their residents getting an out of state permit. Hawaiians could get Florida permits. No state has issued permits without mandatory training, and I don't see that happening in the future, either. People would still have to be responsible for their actions in whatever state they were in and remain law-abiding citizens. Win-win.

What would not change is that good people would still be good people. A permit holder from Texas would not go to Indiana and gun people down any more than they would in their own state. If the permit process "degraded" to "pay $1 and you're good," that would not make permit holders become bad guys. Bad guys wouldn't pay the dollar, just as they don't get permits now before robbing a gas station.

There's too much fear about guns and not enough focus on the people committing the crimes. 2/3 of murders are committed unarmed--guns don't murder people, bad people murder people.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Mike, the language of the statute is quite similar to 18USC926A, which is the FOPA transportation provisions which protect people from transporting their guns across states while locked in trunk (or generally away from the driver), separate from ammo. Are you suggesting that the FOPA transport provisions are unconstitutional as well?
I think FOPA is on thin ice; the "I can carry in your state most anywhere even though your state does not accept my permit bill" falls thru the ice.
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:

What would not change is that good people would still be good people. A permit holder from Texas would not go to Indiana and gun people down any more than they would in their own state. If the permit process "degraded" to "pay $1 and you're good," that would not make permit holders become bad guys. Bad guys wouldn't pay the dollar, just as they don't get permits now before robbing a gas station.

There's too much fear about guns and not enough focus on the people committing the crimes. 2/3 of murders are committed unarmed--guns don't murder people, bad people murder people.

I agree with your above statements 100%. I do notdispute that at all.In my state, it is not required to have a permit to carry openly or concealed whether one has a permit or not andno matter whether one is a resident or not as long as they are legally allowed to possess the firearm. That's the way it should be everywhere...The permit thatmy state does offer is for reciprocity purposes only.

Your previous points are that certain restrictions would have to be lifted and I just don't believe it would happen. Hawaii and Marylandare not going to allow people to carry if they don't want people to carry. They will add off-limits locations if they have to do so. They will not stand idely by and let non-residents carry against their will and have their own citizens get out-of-state-permits to carry in their own state. Besides, most states that I know of require one to have a permit in their home state before they can get a non-residentpermit from another. Are you aware of any, maybe Utah? In that case, it isn't going to help places Like Maryland, Hawaii, and D.C. which getting a permit there is harder than winning the lottery.Additionally,I have a hard time believing the school zone law willever be lifted.I would be overjoyed, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

The bottom line of what I am trying to say is that I disagree with you in that I think this will end upcausing more nationwiderestrictions instead of less and therefore, I will not support this legislation.
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

PT111: I believe almost all states that issue permits require training before you can obtain the permit, even SC. Alabama is a weird one, some counties require training while others do not. worrying about anti-CC proposals is just defeating yourself.

Florida accepts out-of-state mail-in applications for $117 as of last month. Minnesota has a $90 or $100 fee for out-of-state (depending on the Sheriff's department visited), but you have to apply in person. Utah will then grant an out-of-state mail-in permit at a cost of $20, provided you have UT certified training. Between FL and UT, most everything that can be covered is.

Michigan won't accept a permit that was not issued in a home-state, so assuming I have FL and UT permits, they are not valid in MI because I'm from WI. That's one more restriction that would be lifted. Again, win-win, since my permits would allow me to carry here and there.

Nationwide (federal) restrictions have been discussed, and exist. Maybe it will cause more, maybe not, and maybe less. One thing is for sure,it will cause fewer restrictions overall, since many state regulations will be bypassed. That's an up-frontwin.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
No state has issued permits without mandatory training,
I don't follow this. Are you saying that all states require mandatory traing for a CCW permit? If so this is news to me.
Pennsylvania doesn't require any training to get a LTCF. You essentially just fill out a form that proves you know how to fill out a form. :)

And no, there's no blood running in the streets, and no mountains of dead children, either.
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
No state has issued permits without mandatory training,
I don't follow this. Are you saying that all states require mandatory traing for a CCW permit? If so this is news to me.
Pennsylvania doesn't require any training to get a LTCF. You essentially just fill out a form that proves you know how to fill out a form. :)

And no, there's no blood running in the streets, and no mountains of dead children, either.
Neither does WA state. You just fill out the paperwork, get fingerprinted :)cuss:), pay the fee, and you're on your way.

Only difference is there is blood running freely down the streets!! When I was up there for Christmas I witnessed 18 gun battles when I visited Pikes Place Market! :what:
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
PT111: I believe almost all states that issue permits require training before you can obtain the permit, even SC. Alabama is a weird one, some counties require training while others do not. worrying about anti-CC proposals is just defeating yourself.

Florida accepts out-of-state mail-in applications for $117 as of last month. Minnesota has a $90 or $100 fee for out-of-state (depending on the Sheriff's department visited), but you have to apply in person. Utah will then grant an out-of-state mail-in permit at a cost of $20, provided you have UT certified training. Between FL and UT, most everything that can be covered is.

Michigan won't accept a permit that was not issued in a home-state, so assuming I have FL and UT permits, they are not valid in MI because I'm from WI. That's one more restriction that would be lifted. Again, win-win, since my permits would allow me to carry here and there.

Nationwide (federal) restrictions have been discussed, and exist. Maybe it will cause more, maybe not, and maybe less. One thing is for sure,it will cause fewer restrictions overall, since many state regulations will be bypassed. That's an up-frontwin.
The recent South Carolina H 3212 bill was rejected on exactly that basis. The House passed it as a full recognition bill accepting aall permits but the Senate ammended it to accept permits only from states that required a training course and a background check. Since the Senate version eliminated GA from the list along with several other states the House refused to go along with the ammendment and we are now back to square one. I don't know the exact number that do not require any traning but it must be quite a few to cause the bill to be rejected completely.
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

The proposed modifications to US Code Chapter 44 Title 18 would notchange any state laws in most states. If you have a permit from State A (or State A allows you to carry a concealed weapon without permit and you are a resident), and go to State B, you must follow all the laws as if you had a permit issued by State B. If you go to WI or IL where there is no permit, you must not carry where the state says guns cannot be carried.

With the wording and history it seems that there is only a move towards permit reciprocity, not towards national standards which usurp state standards. The most noticeable thing it does as far as federal power is concerned, is stop states from withholding their citizens right to carry.

HISTORY

H.R. 226--110th Congress: 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.

1/4/2007--Introduced. Amends the federal criminal code to establish a national standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.
Feb 2, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
The same basicbill was then introduced as:
H.R. 861--110th Congress: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-861

2/6/2007--Introduced.

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to establish a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.
Feb 6, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.


HR 861 IH



110th CONGRESS


1st Session


H. R. 861
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.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



February 6, 2007



Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

[line]



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. SHORT TITLE.

  • This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. 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) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

    `(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter 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.'.
S. 388--110th Congress: 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.

Jan 25, 2007: Introduced. Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (It is basically the same as H.R. 861 above.)

H.R. 5782--110th Congress: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

4/14/2008--Introduced. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-5782



HR 5782 IH



110th CONGRESS


2d Session


H. R. 5782
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



April 14, 2008



Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SALI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

[line]



A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

  • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  • This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008'.
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

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

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
  • `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
    • `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

      `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
    • `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  • The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[line]

Packin' heat: Bill aims to honor concealed weapons permits nationwide
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8941307

WASHINGTON - A bill introduced into Congress this week would force every state to recognize a concealed-weapons permit issued in another state, a move that would make Utah's permit even more of a prize nationwide.

Utah has one of the more easily obtainable permits - an applicant need not even set foot in the state - and the permit is recognized in 32 other states. The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act, dubbed the SAFE Act by supporters, would force the other 17 states to honor the Utah permit or another issued by a carrier's home state.
The bill, introduced this week and co-sponsored by Utah GOP Rep. Chris Cannon, includes the caveat that the permit holder would have to abide by the state's laws on where the firearm can't be carried, such as churches or schools. Cannon backs the bill because he says the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to carry and own a weapon and that right doesn't end at the state line. "You no more give up that right leaving Utah than you give up your right to freely exercise your faith," Cannon says. "This legislation is an important effort to help make that clear - as a matter of federal law."

As of the end of March, Utah has more than 112,000 valid permits registered, according to the Bureau of Criminal Identification. Of those, about 38,300 have been issued to out-of-state residents.Utah's concealed-weapons permit has been referred to as a national permit because it can be issued to anyone - even foreign nationals - who passes certification and is not barred by law from obtaining a weapon. Other states have more restrictions on issuing such permits.

Steve Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, says the bill would compromise the general concept of a state's ability to pass laws restricting concealed weapons. Several states, such as California and New Jersey, have a different burden for obtaining a concealed-firearm permit. "The bill would detract from the ability of a particular state to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons," Gunn says. "I don't see why Utah should be able to dictate to California whether a concealed weapon can be carried in that state." "It just sounds to me like a really bad idea," Gunn added.

The SAFE Act faces a tough legislative road, however. Previous incarnations have made it as far as a House committee hearing, but never advanced to a full vote. And with Congress controlled by Democrats, the bill may not get a hearing this year.

Larry Pratt, the executive director of the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, the group pushing the SAFE bill, says the legislation should create some uniformity in the hodgepodge of state laws across the nation. The bill is similar to the constitutional protections for drivers who have a license issued in one state and who are traveling in another, Pratt says. "You don't have to take a driver's test when you go from Virginia to D.C.," he says.
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
No state has issued permits without mandatory training,
I don't follow this. Are you saying that all states require mandatory traing for a CCW permit? If so this is news to me.
Pennsylvania doesn't require any training to get a LTCF. You essentially just fill out a form that proves you know how to fill out a form. :)

And no, there's no blood running in the streets, and no mountains of dead children, either.
Neither does WA state. You just fill out the paperwork, get fingerprinted :)cuss:), pay the fee, and you're on your way.

Only difference is there is blood running freely down the streets!! When I was up there for Christmas I witnessed 18 gun battles when I visited Pikes Place Market! :what:

Ditto New Hampshire...

Edit: ...Uhh, not the blood in the markets part:shock:
 

packnrat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
19
Location
, ,
imported post

well there should be somekind of law saying all states must respect anothers ccw permits, as in just the travel problem,
going from winamuca Nev to boise ID, you pass through the south eastern corner of oregon.

--truckers beware as there is a scale house there. have your papers ready.--:shock:



but with this said it would be much better if the law just said all states must OBAY the second admendment.


.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

packnrat wrote:
well there should be somekind of law saying all states must respect anothers ccw permits, as in just the travel problem,
going from winamuca Nev to boise ID, you pass through the south eastern corner of oregon.

--truckers beware as there is a scale house there. have your papers ready.--:shock:



but with this said it would be much better if the law just said all states must OBAY the second admendment.
You mean like the Fourteenth Amendment?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I think it is a quite valid position the more I think about it. I find it even more valid under the commerce clause than most other things the feds have ever passed under the commerce clause and this is why (logical argument not a legal one):

The federal gov't confiscated money from all the citizens for the majority of funding for the federal interstate system. That federal interstate system now typically dictates the most expedient manner to travel around this nation, ie the most expedient interstate transportation/travel, much of which involves commerce.

The federal gov't decided to put I-80, I-70 and I-64 (which runs into I-44 and I-70), three of the five (I-40 and I-10 being the others) major east-west travel ways and I-55, a major north-south travel way, smack dab through IL. For many people traveling, there is no practical, timely way to bypass IL on other 4-lane roadways. There is no continuous 4-lane central state (unless one wants to argue that I-40 is central) interstate route east-west or north-south that does not pass through IL.

So, for most of the nation, significant east-west interstate travel requires passing through anti-gun Illinois. What if IL passes a law stating that only state residents with a valid FOID card can possess a handgun in the state for any reason? Passes a $1/gal fuel tax on all out of state vehicles? (Two things presented in the state legislature over the years) Because the feds ran those interstates through IL, can IL essentially hold east-west travel and a lot of north-south travel hostage to whatever they dream up and pass? People in Chicago might vote for such things as they have no effect on the state citizens, being only punitive to those traveling to or through the state.

People who don't wish to deal with the laws can avoid CA, WA, OR, HI or most of the northeast. Most everyone living in this country who travel any great distances will at some point have to deal with passing thorugh IL because of where significant parts of the interstate system runs. And it isn't even the entire state of IL. Most of this crap comes from Chicago which has enough population to utterly control the state legislature. So can Chicago, IL hold the major east-west, central north-south transportation hostage to it's whims? Where do we draw the line?

I think we draw the line here. Don't like passing a national CC reciprocity bill? Great. Let's force our elected representatives to deny IL any interstate funding until it recognizes CC licenses from all 50 states. The fed gov't has denied highway funding to force the states to do all sorts of things that diminish our rights. Let's make them use that hammer to do something that protects our rights for a change.
 
Top