Posted on 09/23/2011 5:09:23 AM PDT by marktwain
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.
Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.
And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.
For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level. Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government’s permission.
After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they’re not criminals before being allowed to carry?
Vermont had it right for over a century. Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.
And the result? Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.
And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes. And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.
Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.
And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.
Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.
Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.
After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.
The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).
In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms. This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.
Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.
Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.
ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act.
Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 FAX: 703-321-8408 www.gunowners.org
About: Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul
Where can one find a copy of this bill?
As is a majority of criminals never obtain permits.
(imho) Governments (local, state, federal) have always enacted laws to collect fees from those obeying the laws. This bill (if enacted) would be a major step forward for returning to our Constitution as the basis of legislation. May the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed be this nation's rally point, as this nation returns to a Constitutional government, where the criminals fear the law-abiding citizenry. May upset the criminal justice system having to deal with less income due to the crime rate plummeting. Sounds (as is) a Win Win.
The New York Times recently ran an editorial against this bill, and their argument showed that they either did not understand it, or were intentionally misrepresenting how it would operate. They said that it would lead to a flood of concealed weapons in the country, which it would not.
For example, it would not change the plight of New Jersey, where although there is a formal method for applying for CCW permits, these permits are (by arbitrary will of the police and courts) virtually never issued. Thus it is conceivable that an out-of-stater with a permit from back home could carry in NJ; but the benighted New Jersey resident still could not carry in his/her own state; nor could he/she take advantage of the reciprocity benefits of this law, because of the lack of a home-state permit.
New Jersey is a “may issue” state which actually does not issue. One can say that NJ pretends to issue, but really does not. By contrast, Connecticut (similar in many respects to NJ geographically and demographically) is also listed as a may-issue state, but CT actually does issue carry permits, even to people from NJ. This difference does not show up in any discernible way in crime statistics, except that (as usual) permitted carriers are much less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen. It is clearly untrue that issuing carry permits increases gun violence and general crime.
A good result of the passage of this bill (unlikely to be signed by Obama) would be that it would put New Jersey on the spot. They would have to decide whether they really wish to announce that they will not longer pretend to issue permits (to keep out-of-staters from enjoying carry privileges with their own residents cannot have), or they will have to actually issue permits, which could happen just by a decision, perhaps prodded by NJ state legislation.
This business of N J pretending to issue when it does not, is a fraud and a deception.
There are three states which effectively do not have carry privileges: Illinois has none. NJ and MD pretend, but do not issue.
New York issues in more rural counties, but has no mechanism for non-residents, either through permitting or reciprocity.
There are a few other states which can be difficult. Out-of-staters can get a permit in SC only if they are “qualified,” which means that they must own land in SC! Massachusetts will issue permits to out-of-staters, but only one year at a time, and $100 for each year! (Hardly worth it if you are just driving through.)
Interesting dilemma here. We all like this one for sure! However ... we don’t need a law that gives a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution ... also, it is another government “regulation” ... NO MORE GOV in my life, even if I LIKE the bill. I vote NO. Love the bill, but don’t want ANYTHING ELSE from the government in my life.
So, the federal government should not be able to enforce the Bill of Rights on the state government?
Why don’t we have different laws in every city/state for the 1st amendment?
Actually, we do have quite a few different state laws on the First Amendment, but they all fall under the Consntitutional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
The First Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment, as the Second is now incorporated under the McDonald ruling.
The Bill of Rights should ALREADY be enforced. We need a law to enforce the law? C’mon ... ‘nuff laws and regulations. Just use the ones we have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.