Movin’ On with Prop. 63 and a New President

Mr. Paredes,

Any federal statute (law) for nationwide “concealed carry” must be clarified to require that notwithstanding any State, county or local law to the contrary, ANY concealed carry license or permit issued by any State agency or political subdivision (i.e,. by a county government or sheriff or city police chief) SHALL be deemed valid across state lines, except when the person carrying concealed is a prohibited person under federal law (i.e., a convicted felon, under indictment or a fugitive for a pending FELONY–not a mere infraction or misdemeanor offense).

Concealed carry (and open carry) locations should be governed by the firearm laws of the traveling state, NOT the CCW licensee’s issuing state; PROVIDED THAT no State, county or local government may enact or enforce any law banning the concealed carry of any lawful HANDGUN which was lawfully obtained and owned by the licensee or permit holder in his or her home state, including so-called high capacity magazines and hollow-point ammunition therefor.

The open carrying of all legal long-guns should be subject to the visiting State’s laws (including Fish & Game laws), but consistent with the 1986 federal Firearm Owners Protection Act.

This is necessary so CCW licensees from one State cannot be arrested and prosecuted while possessing and carrying different model HANDGUNS in interstate commerce that an anti-gun State may now or later ban from importation by its own residents, such as California’s approved list or roster of handguns.

One or more of the bills now pending in Congress state that any “restrictions” on the CCW licensee in his home state shall also apply to carrying in the traveling state. This is UNWORKABLE because it would require other state and local governments to also know the gun laws and carry policies of 49 other issuing States and/or thousands of local sheriffs/police chiefs in addition to their own gun laws. It is also unworkable because some (California) sheriffs have arbitrarily added silly restrictions that their CCW licenses are not valid in OTHER States (beyond their jurisdiction), even though “validity” should be governed by the new federal law for nationwide “concealed carry” PROVIDED THAT the CCW license or permit is not revoked or expired.

Also, any nationwide “concealed carry” RECOGNITION statute might be challenged in federal courts by one or more anti-gun states under the Tenth Amendment, so it is ESSENTIAL that Congress state and include the “constitutional basis and authority” for such nationwide “concealed carry” statute in the underlying House and Senate bills, including, but not limited to, (1) the Second Amendment, (2) the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause, (3) the Full Faith and Credit Clause, (4) the Interstate Commerce Clause, and (5) the “constitutional right to travel from state to state” under the Ninth Amendment (if that “right” resides there or elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution or federal case law).

Recall that “Obamacare” was initially challenged by several States in federal courts claiming that is was “unconstitutional” under the Commerce Clause and other legal arguments; but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld “Obamacare” under the TAXING Clause of the United States Constitution to the stunning surprise of the litigating parties and media.

Please advise GOA and NRA to get on board and immediately amend any proposed nationwide “concealed carry” House and Senate bills to clarify the carry parameters, supra, and to withstand any potential legal challenges by anti-gun states such as California and New York to name a few.

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. Please note the legal difference between CCW “reciprocity” policies and CCW “recognition” laws. The former are generally written voluntary agreements (contracts) between one or more State governments, whereas “recognition” laws are governed by written state laws stating that a State accepts ALL other State licenses or permits. Thus, nationwide “concealed carry” would be a federal “recognition” statute (NOT a contract) enacted by Congress under the authority of the United States Constitution, supra.

Leave A Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.