........... while it may make it easier to carry across State lines, it further entrenches the idea that the right to bear arms is satisfied when States give permission to bear arms by issuing a permit.
It further entrenches the idea that gun owners should shut up and be happy they can bear arms all over the whole country as long as they go get a permit for it.
It further entrenches the idea that the government has the authority to require a permit to bear arms.................
That is true, but I fail to see another way.
Our
right to carry rests on the various local and state goverments, and the federal goverment, recognizing it. If they do, we can exersize it. If they don't, we exersize it under the threat that if discovered we will be put into prison. I don't like that system, but the
only alternative is to reduce the scope and power of goverment to the point where it does not have the physical power to attempt to prohibit that carrying of arms. That is a monumental undertaking that I doubt either of us will see in our lifetimes.
So, given that our
right to bear arms is subject to goverment recognising it, the concept of the federal goverement forcing states to recognize it is a step in the right direction. The problem is that the federal geverment is supposed to be limited in what it can do. In this case, the following actions are all it can do:
1) Do nothing and let states restrict or ban carry as they see fit.
2) Pass a law that requires states to honor the licenses issued by other states (authorized under Article IV, section 1).
3) Pass a law reinforceing that the 2nd amendment applies to the states as well AND over-riding the courts interpertation and stating that it gaurantees a right to carry arms.
Number 3 is DOA. If passed, it would force California, Illinios, New York & Massechusetts, among others, to allow open and concealed carry without permits. Combined those states alone, not to mention the other 47 that refuse to allow carry without a permit, have more than enough votes to squash any legislation. Moreso, an attempt to pass it would harden them against ANY further erosion of gun control. Even if passed, a future congress could repeal it and the courts would still not support that there was any gaurantee of the right to bear arms.
Number 1 is the staus quo. It is saying that we cannot win on the federal level, so we are restricting us to fighting state by state and hoping to win that way. How is that working in the states that won't even issue concealed carry permits? Do you really think retaining the right to carry an unloaded pistol openly in California is actually retaining any right at all? Do you see any hope to move California to allow open (or concealed) carry with no permitting process? How about Illinois? For the Chicago area, it's still an uphill battle to get people to be allowed to purchase handguns.
Number 2 is what is left. We have made great strides in loosening restictions on carry state by state, but we are running into a wall within some states. A way to crak them is to force them to honor permits from other states. Granted, having to get a permit is a poor excuse for the right to carry. But there are far more people comfortable with that right now. And as people become more comfortable with carrying guns, they become more accepting of doing it without a permiting process. Just look here in Michigan:
- 25 years ago it was almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit, and while open carry was allowed under state law, most cities prohibited it (and listed it as a felony).
- 20 years ago we had just gotton the preemption law passed.
- 15 years ago you would be hassled and harrassed if you excersized your right to open carry - to an extent that those who are newer to this issue have NEVER experianced (trust me, I was there). There were a couple of counties that functioned as "shall issue" (though legaly still may issue).
- about 10 years ago we got statewide shall issue passed. Open carry, while legal, was still subject to extensive harrassment. it was estimated that in Macomb county (which was already acting under "shall issue") 1 in 70 adults had a CPL. Statewide it was considerably less.
- In the last couple of years we have won enough acceptance of open carry that people doing so most often receive nothing more than a few polite looks. Many cities refuse to respond to "man with a gun" calls unless the caller can identify some threatening behavior. Statewide, it's estimated that 1 in 25 adults has a CPL.
Personally, I think the wider issuing and acceptance of CPLs has helped to make the public more comfortable with carrying cuns in general and therfore more comfortable with open carry (without any permit).
