Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Should Concealed Weapons Permit Holders Be Allowed To Carry Guns Across State Lines?

My driver's license was issued by the state of New Jersey but it is recognized by the 49 other states so I don't need a separate license for each state I visit. Which is a good thing because, if that were required, there'd be virtually no interstate travel in the United States.

Now, a U.S. Senate measure would extend those same benefits to holders of concealed weapons permits. The measure is mainly aimed at protecting truck drivers who typically carry large amounts of cash on them as they travel the highways of America. If a trucker based in Tennessee qualifies, for example, for a concealed weapons permit there, why can't he carry his gun for protection while hauling a load to Iowa?

Gun control advocates oppose the proposal. They argue, if one state has liberal gun permit laws, that's fine for that state, but don't put the rest of us in danger by flooding our state with guns.

But presumably there are standards in each state for the issuing of permits - and those who receive them are deemed qualified and stable enough to carry a gun.

A Senate vote on the bill is expected today.


Photo credit:


consumerkim said...

This would be an assault on public safety and make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. When I first moved to Vermont, my folks used to come visit once or twice a year. Every time, I had to remind my dad that he couldn't bring his revolver with him because Massachusetts does not allow you to be in possession of a weapon while in the state (not even an unloaded, secured weapon) and he had to come up through Mass.

I know that Vermont has a helmet law, so if you have a motorcycle in Vermont you have to have a helmet when you operate it, yet New Hampshire does not. Last time I checked, mc operators from NH don't get stopped and ticketed for riding in Vermont sans helmets (now, maybe they do and I just don't know it). If that's the case, then what's the difference?

OK, I realize that possession of a firearm is potentially more dangerous than lack of a helmet (the firearm MAKES YOU dangerous, the lack of a helmet puts YOU in danger). But other than that?

Anonymous said...

Gun control, and I'm sorry to let you liberals know this, gun control is all about putting young black men in jail. It's just the liberal annex of the war on drugs. Nice white people should be given a break, just so they don't wind up in a net that wasn't intended for them.

Local gun control is idiotic in any event since we don't control interstate borders at all. Drive the speed limit and look ok, ie white, and there is virtually no chance of detection of an illegal firearm until it is being unloaded into a crowd.

Anonymous said...

You give the example of driver's licenses being honored across state lines - fair enough. But you forgot to mention that many licenses are not. Doctors, lawyers, even exterminators, among others, have to be relicensed or retested if they choose to set up shop in another state.

I'm not normally a huge state's rights person, but on this one I am. A bit of background here. I grew up in a town where everybody hunted and had guns. My father chose not to keep a gun in the house, nor did he hunt, but he made sure I knew what they could do, and didn't object to others showing me how to use one.

Fast forward to the present. Unfortunately the pride of gun usage, and admiration of a well-crafted firearm has been supplanted to embrace any and all idiots who have no business even touching a gun, much less transporting one across state lines. Does that make me a gun snob? Yes, it does.

If a state wants to arm every man, woman and child in their state, that's their business. But if another state doesn't want that, that is their right too.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious how often truck drivers are actually robbed and have had cause to use their concealed weapons for protection. I'm not being contrary here - I legitimately would like to see numbers on that sort of thing.

I find it curious that the same people advocating for this amendment are the same people who reject the notion that marriage licenses for homosexual couples should be recognized in all states. So there's an element of hypocrisy here from those people who make the driver's license analogy.

Second, each state has their reasons for their gun control laws. For example, Alaska has open carry laws, because frankly.. that's the kind of place where you could literally run into a bear on the way to your car. Fine. But while that might work and might make sense in Alaska, it doesn't mean that that logic applies in a state like California. Where does this end? What's next, forcing all states to embrace the laxest requirements for open carry?

Anonymous said...

Recipe for Economic Stagnation :)..People traveling is always good for the economy.If I cant protect my self in a state I wount travel to that state...... Don't tread on me. I want to be legal to carry! Turn in your NEIGHBOUR for OWNING GUNS -- collect $1000! :):):)

Anonymous said...

I am no gun nut, but I think that truckers should be able to have a pistol if they have a state lic. For many truckers, that truck is their home (spending weeks in it at a time) - why can't they defend it like we can our homes?
Many of these truckers have lic. to transport hazardest material that are more of a threat to the public that wheter or not they carry a firearm for protection.
Just my thoughts?!

J.Robert Godbout

Anonymous said...

I'd say that if we were that concerned about trucker safety in particular (and I see the merits of that particular example), then we should advocate for laws exempting truckers engaged in legal commercial business from state-based concealed carry laws. I'd support a law that allows truckers who are on the road on official trips to carry concealed weapons. They should be allowed to carry them in their trucks, and maybe even on their person. But that doesn't mean that they get to conceal carry when they head to their local bar after finishing up a long haul.

But to make a broad law that would allow ANY Joe Blow to have a permit, based on the most lax state law in the nation, is stupid.

Anonymous said...

If you actually read the bill instead of just editorials on the bill, you would realize that Alaskans would have to get a concealed carry permit from their state before they could carry concealed in other states, even though they don't need one in their own state. An Alaskan concealed carry permit (primarily issued so that Alaskans can have reciprocity with other states) has the same basic requirements that CCW permits have in other states--a background check, fingerprinting, and a gun safety course, as well as an almost $100 fee..

Anonymous said...

In terms of concealed carry in a bar, the Thune amendment wouldn't apply the "most lax" law to all permit holder, instead it would apply the law of the state. For example, if I'm a permit holder from Florida, and I go to Massachussetts, if Massachussetts has a law against permit holders carrying in convenience stores (just a madeup example), I'm not allowed to carry my gun in a convenience store, even if it's legal to carry my gun in a convenience store in Florida.

It's all in the law. Read it before you knee jerk about it.

Search the following URL for S.AMDT.1618 to S.1390

Anonymous said...

Isn't it already the law that if one is licensed to carry in two states, that they are allowed to transport between them across any states in the middle while actually traveling between those to states?