Liberty MavenConcealed Carry State Reciprocity and the States Rights Argument
July 22nd, 2009 11:53 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Civil Liberties, Commentary, Constitution, Gun Control, Liberty, Maven Commentary, states rights | 2 Responses
Today the Senate is debating what has come to be known as the Thune Amendment (S.845), which would allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Watching the debate is rather interesting. Just about every Senator who rises to oppose the amendment argues that it “tramples states rights”. As an individual who supports states rights this caught my attention.
Does the Thune Amendment actually violate states rights?
It does not. It can be thought of as applying the laws of state driver’s licenses to concealed carry permits. The summary of the amendment makes it clear that it requires that the carrier follow the laws of the state in which he/she is carrying:
A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
Yet every Senator opposed to the amendment is falsely arguing that it violates states rights?
Incidentally, I applaud my own Senator, Jim Webb, for supporting the amendment against the wishes of his Democratic colleagues.
The vote is supposed to occur about an hour from the time of this writing. I’ll write more following the vote.
Loading ...
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 am (#)
I think this issue raises many good and important questions – and have yet to come to a conclusion on it, though. Although my initial reaction is to always lean away from giving the federal government the power to force states to do anything.
My question is this – would you also support giving the federal government the power to force other states to recognize other licenses and permits? i.e. marriage…? I would not, and am concerned that this kind of thing could create bad precedent. your thoughts?
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 am (#)
I'm with you there. The example of marriage is perhaps not a good one though because it's not something you can leave behind when you travel between states.
This amendment was interesting (it failed, needed 2 more votes) because while it didn't usurp the state's post-permit carry laws it does usurp the state's laws regarding obtaining a permit. It creates a bit of a loophole. If you are in a state that doesn't require a live fire test to get a permit and you get one, you then can carry into a state that DOES require such a test. So, it is possible to argue that it usurps states rights on those grounds, I suppose.
What annoys me more is that the amendment was tacked on to a Defense Spending Bill.
I'm gonna post a follow-up article with more details.
Enjoy,
Marc