From
usacarry.com:
Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation:
- It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
- By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
- In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
- The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
My thoughts:
Point number one: it does nothing of the sort. Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming can enact legislation to establish a permit for reciprocity purposes and specify that it is not required for in-state carry. The permit would likely have to follow the same guidelines as other states (training, background check, etc) in order to be acceptable to them, but there is nothing that says anyone has to have one for in-state carry.
And while we're at it...what's the difference from what they have now? They still have to get a non-resident out-of-state permit to be able to carry in other states, so this changes nothing for them.
Point number two: it does nothing of the sort. See Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming above. There is nothing keeping other states from adopting the same type of legislation abolishing the requirement of permits for in-state carry while offering an optional concealed permit for reciprocity purposes. When all the States have Constitutional Carry they can all opt to abandon their permits since no one will ever need one.
Point number three: sounds like a good reason for residents of that state (coff*illinois*coff) to either change their own state laws or move to a less freedom-hating state. Maybe seeing people travel from state to state without turning the whole country into the "Wild Wild West" will help them get over their irrational fear.
Point number four: bs. It is the Congress telling the States "You see that part in the Tenth Amendment where it says "nor prohibited by it to the States"? Long overdue in my opinion, and it would be nice if Congress could extend the idea of Second Amendment protection over their own areas of responsibility while they are at it...like DC, where the Congress is supposed to be the city government as well as the Federal government.
Bottom line, there is nothing in this bill that the pro-gun people can't live with, and a lot that they can like. As for the rest of you...well, I guess if you gotta have something to complain about to make you happy...
One of the Representatives that voted against the bill was Rob Woodall (R-GA) who had this to say:
“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said.
Absolutely right Rep. Woodall. If. If if if if if. So, tell me, where is your legislation demanding the States all comply with the Second Amendment, to include the District of Columbia?
?
Yeah. Well,
if flies carried .45's...
Further on down there is this little tidbit:
Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.
Oooh! Bring it on! Every anti that I've ever talked to, without fail, says something about drivers licenses whenever this subject comes up. But let's get to the forefront of this debate. We have to lead this horse, not let it trample us. Sure, make us get a license...that is valid any time, any place, any kind of carry, and any firearm I wish to tote.
The license has to be affordable (like driver's licenses) and the requirements to get one cannot be too arduous (like drivers' licenses). The license is only required when you are off private property, whether that be your own or others that you are on with permission, like a drivers license (you don't need one to drive around your neighbors pasture if you have his permission).
I can live with a required class and a proficiency test like a drivers license, and I'll agree to a background check. The fees can't be too ridiculous, and the required class has to be waived for people over the age of 18 as long as they can show proficiency (like a drivers license). In return I get to carry concealed or open, I get to carry anywhere I go; no more restrictions for Government buildings, State parks, banks and all of that nonsense. ALL other firearms laws, Federal, State and local, are abolished.
Not good enough for you? OK, I'll agree to a special endorsement, like a CDL, for fully automatic weapons that require additional training. I can live with that. Once again, the requirements cannot be overly arduous...and that means financially as well. Oh, by the way...that means I get to actually own fully automatic weapons. I'll even agree that I can't tote them off my own or others private property loaded and uncased unless I have the endorsement on my license. Fair is fair, after all.
(Let me have this one and I'll have a pintle-mount for a .50 on the Baja in short order...)
And by the way...no, you can't have a registry of any guns. Forget it. Yes I know cars have license plates. So what. You still can't have a registry of any guns. We're talking about a license to carry, like a drivers license, not license plates for cars. I can have a license to drive and not own a car, so there.
The antis might talk a good show about a national license, but none of them that I have made the above proposal to really wants to fall down that rabbit hole.
Now if we can get Constitutional carry in all 50 States and the District of Columbia like the Second Amendment says I'll be a happy camper. But until then, this bill is a step in the right direction.
