CCW Laws

[Hydra Shok]

I'm a little curious about a few things that may or may not have been discussed here before.


Thing #1: When are the states that either dont allow concealed carry, or severely cripple decent law abiding citizens, going to realize that the criminals, that the good citizens are trying to protect themselves, family, and property from, don't give a rip about those very same laws? While you are going thru the maze of red tape to legally own and carry a firearm for protection, as they are intended, the criminal either steals or illegally gains control of a firearm then promptly robs a liqour store, murders the poor innocent cashier, carjacks a mother of two, then leads police on a high speed chase. While after weeks of waiting you may or may not have gotten your legal CCW permit, then to be told what kind of ammunition you can or cannot use. Seems like to be a good law abiding citizen that is trying to exercise your right to own and carry a firearm as stated in the 2nd Amendment is almost more trouble than it's worth. To me, if a person is, as I said before, a decent law abiding United States citizen that has no felony convictions, has the right to own and carry a firearm, and a state that doesn't allow it, is violating the 2nd Amendment and could face court action for violating a persons civil rights.


Thing #2: I live in Alabama, and Alabama recognizes several other states CCW permits. Some states do not recognize any other states other than their own. My Alabama drivers license is recognized in Illinois, but not my CCW. I have no idea what kind of trouble I could get in if I were to be travelling thru Illinois and it were to be found that I had a pistol. Why don't they Federalize CCW's like CDL ( Comercial Drivers License ) licenses? Then any CCW would be recognized where ever you travel. Heck, make it mandetory to go thru some kind of training course that proves you can safely operate a firearm. Have a course that teaches safe carry, safe draw, and safe shooting. Perhaps if criminals knew that they could be shot more precisely, they may decide not to invade my, or your house. I don't believe that the right to protect myself and family from a criminal that intends on doing harm should end at a state line.


Ok if you know an answer to my rants let me know, I would appreciate it. Or even add your own question and or rant.

[SouthernMoss]

On Thing #1, I agree with you 100%. The old adage "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" has become a cliche, but that's because it's true. The gun control advocates are so intent on controlling gun ownership that they either can't, or else refuse, to recognize and acknowledge the truth that you have described in your post.

And yes, it is our Second Amendment right to own firearms. But little by little, these folks are trying to erode, and eventually remove altogether, that right. That's why it is vitally important that we work proactively to maintain and protect our Constitutional rights. Write to your Senators and Representatives to let them know that you expect them to support pro-gun issues. Write to them every time an issue comes up. Support organizations that are pro-gun. And refuse to support organizations that are anti-gun.

On Thing #2, it is your responsibility when traveling with a firearm to know the laws of the state(s) through which you will be traveling. When in doubt, keep it unloaded, in a locked case, in the trunk of your vehicle.

As to the reciprocity of CCW between states, it definitely gets confusing sometimes. I have CCW licenses for MS (resident) and FL (nonresident), and between the two I can carry in about 21 states. But each state has its own laws, and it is my responsibility to know the laws of each state before I carry into them.

I'm not sure you could ever Federalize CCWs. That might be stepping too far into the area of states rights vs federal rights. I'll let some of the more knowledgeable folks address that issue.

It sure would be nice, though, to be able to carry at all times. I agree with you that I should have the right to protect myself and my family when I/we travel.

[tuckerd1]

#1 I agree wholeheartedly.

#2 As SM said, for the time being you are gonna have to know the laws of each state and be prepared.

As for federal CCW, I disagree here because I think we need to cut federal controls, not increase them. States should govern themselves with as little federal intervention as possible. Limit the powers of the fed. gov't as the Constitution says.

[Marlin]

I agree with both SoMo and Tuck. They have put it succiently and better than I could.

The NRA-ILA site has up-to-date listings of those who have the right-to-carry and lists the reciprocal agreements between various states. This should always be checked as a first step before traveling with a hand gun. You can find it at these places:

CCW Facts

Reciprocity Facts

Note to Hydra: Here are the stats on Alabama

Alabama CCW Facts/Reciprocity

[1952Sniper]

Actually, I got some mail recently (from either GOA or NRA, can't remember at the moment) that suggested there might be a Federal bill coming down the pike sometime soon that would basically federalize CCW licenses.

Well, not federalize it. But allow for national reciprocity just like driver's licenses. I can't find any information on this through quick searches, but I'm sure someone here knows about this.

[Gunfyter]

Well, here in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Maryland, our politicans don't believe that we have a right to protect ourselves when we leave our homes. In order to get a CCW you have to demostrate need, which means carrying large sums of cash or valuables. They also say you can get a permit if someone has made a death threat against you, but you have to be able to prove it. It seems to me that if someone has threatened to kill you, then you are lucky to have survived.

I owned a liquor store for nine years and had a permit during that time. It was so restrictive as be almost worthless. I could carry between my home, the store and the bank, nowhere else.

I recently sent the Governor an email asking for some sort of answer on my getting a permit. My reasons were rather good, I thought. You be the judge. Service in the United States Army during the Viet Nam War, former permit holder, 24 hours of concentrated firearms training from a Maryland based company and two artifical joints leaving me unable to survive a physical encounter. I'm still waiting for an answer. All this and the fact that Maryland enjoys one of the highest crime rates in the nation. Plus, we live next door to the Murder Capital of the country, Washington, D.C. where only the police and criminals have guns.

Ok, rant off.

[Tony Mig]

I feel your pain Gunfyter....I live in The Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey and the laws are pretty much the same here with concealed carry.....
I don't have the same credentials as you, but I've taken a couple of NRA courses at my range, and would be willing to take more if they would allow me my Constitutional Right to keep (carry) and bear arms.
I have a part time job that involves driving a 3,400 gallon tank truck of fuel oil into some pretty hateful nieghborhoods. Besides being a prime target for terroristic hijacking, I believe I more than have a right to protect myself with a firearm, and I just might carry something with me this winter...permit or not.

[Hydra Shok]

Thanks for the valuable input guys.

Tuckered wrote: As for federal CCW, I disagree here because I think we need to cut federal controls, not increase them. States should govern themselves with as little federal intervention as possible. Limit the powers of the fed. gov't as the Constitution says.


I couldn't agree more to keep the Federal Government out of our lives as much as possible, but on the other hand, if it meant that any CCW license would be recognized in any state, wouldn't it be worth it? Back in 1991, the federal government decided to get into the trucking business,so to speak, by issuing CDL ( Commercial Drivers License ) licenses to anyone that operates a commercial vehical that exceeds 10,000 pounds GVW ( Gross Vehicle Weight ). Since April of 91 anyone wanting to drive a truck for a living has to pass a written and driving exam to prove they have the basic knowledge of the operation of such a vehicle, whether it's a straight truck , a combination ( tractor trailor ), double or triple trailor, tanker, and haz mat endorsements. I was grandfathered, since I was already driving before this date, and only had to take a written exam, which I passed with flying colors . You also have to pass a physical examination every two years in order to retain your CDL license, it can be very intrusive , almost as intrusive as a military physical .
Anyway, if the government can do this with a drivers license to make sure that the people driving trucks are physically fit, and have the knowledge to operate a vehicle safely, and the basic mechanics of a truck, such as how air brakes operate etc. etc., why can't they do it with CCW licenses? If people had to go thru the same things to obtain a CCW, I would feel much safer, wouldn't you?


Hey Marlin, I checked the reciprocity link you provided, says the permit costs $10, they have been charging me $20. Either the site had the facts wrong, or somebody owes me a buncha money!


What about the civil rights of carrying? Seems folks get a lot of money sueing other people for violating their civil rights by not letting them do something like, uhhhh, like not getting a drivers license when thay can't speak english, and that's not even in the Constitution!

[Tony Mig]

I agree with Hydra Shok on this. The Fed doesn't need to get involved in everything, but the Federal CDL thing has work very well in keeping bad truck drivers off the roads, and making driving a commercial truck for a living much easier for leggit drivers.

The Secound Admendment is a federal law, and if the individual states will not reccognise that right given to all law abiding, tax paying citizens to keep, carry and bear arms, then I believe the Federal government needs to step in to insure our constitutional rights. Establish a set of uniform guild lines in order to obtain a CCW so that everybody who carries has to meet the same standards, and those that choose to carry, may do so in all 50 states, and territories of the USA.

The NRA can establish a standard training course for CCW, and certify NRA firearms instructors to teach the courses. Once you have cleared all neccessary crimial background checks, and present proof that you have obtained the propper training, a CCW should be granted without further question, and much like the CDL, an NCIC check every couple of years to insure that all holders haven't crossed the line. This may sound intrusive, but it keeps every one honest, and doesn't allow a few to spoil it for everybody else.

It also puts those of us living in states that hold a hard line on gun issues to be on a level playing field with the rest of the country.

You guys are (as always) welcome to dissagree with my views, but before you do, try living in a state like New Jersey, Delaware or Maryland before you pass judgement on me or Hydra Shok.......

[1952Sniper]

Wow, it's hard to believe that gun owners are such supporters of gun control (background checks, training requirements, etc.).

Do you also think we should have to take a test to exercise our Constitutional rights to free speech?

[tuckerd1]

Hydra Shok & Tony Mig,

I not argueing that some training for everyone would be good. I agree. As far as NCIC, the Sheriff of the county that issues the permit will do that. A national CCW permit would be great considering all the states that are abusing the Constitution. BUT....

I'm argueing that the Feds already control too much of the state's rights. We need to take power away from the Feds, not giive them more.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Marlin]

Toby, good reaction!

It just goes to show you how deeply engrained the anti-gun rhetoric becomes when you give a little to try to protect a right that you already have and is guarenteed to be UNLIMITED by its very wording. The inch by inch give-in eventually leads, a piece at a time, to a total loss of the freedom.

Unfortunately many persons who live in states that have become the Peoples Republic of ********** have fought the best they know how just to retain any semblence of a right and a large number are beaten down or brainwashed into thinking anything is a privilege granted by the state when a crumb is thrown rather than acknowledging an unlimited right granted by the superior Constitution.

Hydra, the $10.00 fee is the amount set for the State by the Code of Alabama, or State Statutes.

However, that said, each county is free to add a fee, by way of the County Commission enacting a statute to that effect, for the use and benefit of the county. My permit in Jasper has been $16.00 for years, $10 going to the State and $6 remaining in Walker County in either the Sheriff's funds or in the general fund. How the local stipend is dispersed is governed by the local statute or resolution granting it. Apparently Mobile County has added $10.00 for the same purpose. The same permissive statutes explain why each County has a different Court cost schedule and different total charge for car tags with the local tax add-on for ad valorem factor determined by both the City and County separately. Our tags in Walker were much higher than either Mobile or Birmimgham!

[armedandsafe]

If I understand things correctly (debatable, sometimes,) the following is why each state recognizes all other stat'e driver's licences, marriages, birth certificate, adoptions, technical skills licensing, etc.

Article. VI. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sure wish this were followed on CCW.

Pops

[1952Sniper]

This is, I think, what Congress is trying to do with the Federal CCW reciprocity bill. Am I the only one who has heard of this? Or did I dream it?

This would not be giving the Feds more power. This is already well within their power, since they have power to mediate between States.

Thanks for the reference, Pops!

[Hydra Shok]

Hey Sniper, thanks for the replys.


Sniper said: Wow, it's hard to believe that gun owners are such supporters of gun control (background checks, training requirements, etc.).

Do you also think we should have to take a test to exercise our Constitutional rights to free speech?

Now my views on gun control, are in my mind, a way to keep people from having them or severly regulating them to the point where it is almost impossible to own and carry one legally. As far as background checks or training requirements, I wouldn't mind either, I have nothing to hide and training only makes you better and compatent at something.

As far as taking a test to exercise free speech, well that would be silly, but if you compare it to the way I was talking about different states and their CCW laws and reciprocity, what if you have free speech in the state you live in, but cross the state line and suddenly you dont have free speech? Think of how that would go over.


Now we have a good discussion going, wish I knew how Logansdad felt about it .

[Hydra Shok]

Hey Tuckered, thanks to you as well for the replys.

Tuckered said : I'm argueing that the Feds already control too much of the state's rights. We need to take power away from the Feds, not giive them more.


I agree wholeheartedly that the federal government should stick to using taxmoney for services and defense instead of giving grants to wacko groups and just plain wasting and uncontrolled spending, but if the government issued national CCW's would it be giving THEM too much power or would it be a way for the government to help people exercise their second amendment rights without some anti gun liberal states saying you can only carry a gun on your property, at your place of business, or that you cannot have hollowpoint bullets in your gun? Personally, I don't think it's anybody's damn business but my own as to what kind of ammunition I choose to use for my own defense. And I still think it's some kind of civil rights violation that some states don't allow carry of any kind. Maybe I should call Jesse Jackson, he's always trying to make sure everyones civil rights aren't being violated .

[stash247]

I'm not real smart, but I heard that the state of either Vermont, or maybe Conneticutt, has no problem at all with the citizenry going armed, at will, with no CCW bull**** at all.
Full faith and credit considered, it seems very reasonable, for ALL States to take the same approach. Of course, this is just not gonna happen, unless we take the same approach the French did, and punish the workman, not the tool.
In France, as I understand, there is no Form 1, Form 4, or any other such nonsense. If you want a machine gun, surpressor, or whatever, that's OK. Buy it, build it, whatever,OK.
Misuse it, and the ACT, not the INSTRUMENT, is the important part. Very civilized, all things considered.
Why should my having a loaded revolver on the console change by one iota the magnitude of driving 70 in a 55? If it remains on the console, then just write the ticket for speeding, and let it go at that. If I get ugly with the gun, then do what you have to do.
Seems like we have just about civilized/socialized/ rationalized ourselves into a corner that we'll never reason ourselves out of(please excuse the preposition).
Comments???

[Hydra Shok]

Hi Stash,

Well yes, the easiest thing to do would be say " OK, if you have a gun, carry it, if you abuse it, you will suffer the consequences." But then somebody that doesn't know the difference between a single and double action gun will be out there and could pull it out and wave it around if somebody accidentally bumped into him. Then some anti gun nut would be able to say " See? See? We told you that citizens aren't capable of handling the responsibility of carrying firearms!" Then where would we be?

[armedandsafe]

Right about where we were in 1950. There were always and will always be idiots who truely believe that the actions of one are a predictor of the actions of everybody.

Pops

[1952Sniper]

Then some anti gun nut would be able to say " See? See? We told you that citizens aren't capable of handling the responsibility of carrying firearms!" Then where would we be?

We would then point to the CONSTITUTION and tell them that it mentions nothing about being able to "handle the responsibility" of carrying a firearm.

Let's face it, folks. You don't have to take a test or get a license to drink alcohol, and alcohol kills more people each year than guns. Licenses and training classes are just "feel good" measures, but are blatantly unconstitutional. I don't understand the reasoning behind your defense of unconstitutional behavior. It's time we drew a line in the sand and said "no more".

As far as background checks or training requirements, I wouldn't mind either, I have nothing to hide and training only makes you better and compatent at something.

I have nothing to hide either. I've completed the training and have the license. But I still can't see how that's Constitutional. If someone can show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says that the "shall not be infringed" clause is excepted by training or proof of responsibility, then I'm willing to listen.

As far as taking a test to exercise free speech, well that would be silly, but if you compare it to the way I was talking about different states and their CCW laws and reciprocity, what if you have free speech in the state you live in, but cross the state line and suddenly you dont have free speech? Think of how that would go over.

This is a good example of the absurdity of gun control. No one would dare limit free speech. You wouldn't find one state requiring a license for free speech while its neighbor didn't. That would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. So why do we tolerate it for the 2nd Amendment? If there actually were a state that limited free speech like you mentioned, then the People or the courts would get rid of that law. It should be no different for the right to keep and bear arms.

[Shizamus]

Wow Sniper, that is quite a mouthfull.
Nothing I allready did not know, but just
same, very well stated !
I am 100% in agreement with it and so should
every gun owner or 2nd Amendment supporter.
As you point out , it is amazing that even gun
owners are conditioned in their thinking by the
powers to be(usurpers) into getting their thinking
in line with the usurpers.
It is all about self responsibility folks .


NEVER GIVE THE DEVIL A RIDE,
HE WILL ALWAYS WANT TO DRIVE !

[armedandsafe]

Article. I Section. 8.
"The Congress shall have Power..."
"Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

"A well regulated militia..."

This sets the stage for Congress setting, at the federal level, training and testing minimum standards. By this argument, the Congress is already in the permitting business and has been neglecting its duties for approximately 200 years.

There are places in these United States where certain speech is against the law. These so-called "hate speech" laws are enacted with the best intentions, but they are, by and large, unconstitutional. There are places where you can step over a line and be as rude, crude and uncouth as you wish. Actions which would put you in jeopardy of arrest and incarceration just a few feet away.

There, that should stir the pot a little.

Pops

[1952Sniper]

Pops, you're misinterpreting the "well-regulated militia" clause. This is not a qualifier. It does not mean that you must be in a militia in order to own a firearm. This is why our government has not (yet) attempted to require military service or militia membership in order to purchase or own a firearm. Therefore, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 does not and cannot apply.

Although, I'm sure lots of liberals and anti-gunners have probably been conspiring to apply that interpretation to it. But historical scholars and the courts have generally held that the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is more of a general statement, and does not imply that militia membership is necessary for the People to keep and bear arms (or be regulated by any type of militia rules for such keeping and bearing).

[Tony Mig]

You go through some sort of training, and before you can legally drive, you have to take and pass a test....

What if every state just threw thier hands in the air and said they would no longer require driver's education, or a driving test...no license required, every body just hop in a car or truck and drive......think about it....

I don't like gun control either, but I sure as hell don't want every idiot and his retarded brother running the streets packing a high powered gun, without first being required to take a minimum of training, and understanding the responsibility he now has. Not everybody has the mental capacity to handle the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon....you want that guy standing next to your wife or school age child.....?

There has to be a system in place to at least weed out some of the idiots, drunks, drug addicts, and convicted felons....you call it gun control....I call it common sence.....

[armedandsafe]

No, I'm not misconstruing the militia clause. I'm not saying that one must be officially enrolled in any particular organized militia unit to exercise the right to carry. I am saying that the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish minimum training requirements for the State's militias. It does not apply to the generic right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. The body as a whole is the militia, unorganized. All males of age (and, since sex related civil rights came to be, all females of age,) and health are the militia, willy nilly. Some males and females are part of the organized militia and others are part of the armed forces.

Congress also have the power to arm and equip the militia, another aspect they have neglected for a couple of centuries. Where is my govenrment issued armament and raiment for when I'm called up?

Pops