The Common Clause
________________Congress recently defeated by two votes a Federal Bill to recognize Concealed Carry permits across state lines.
But why was this bill even being considered? The common clause of the Constitution guarantees that any state recognize licenses legally issued by another. This is what federal republics do, or should do.
Ranger's Florida-issued driver's license and plates are valid in all other states of the Union. Why are CCW's not covered by this constitutionally-defined clause?
Cars are more dangerous and cause more death and injury nationwide than do firearms, so why are they not regulated by the same standards?
But why was this bill even being considered? The common clause of the Constitution guarantees that any state recognize licenses legally issued by another. This is what federal republics do, or should do.
Ranger's Florida-issued driver's license and plates are valid in all other states of the Union. Why are CCW's not covered by this constitutionally-defined clause?
Cars are more dangerous and cause more death and injury nationwide than do firearms, so why are they not regulated by the same standards?
Labels: CCW, concealed carry law
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:27 PM
17 Comments:
Firearms are more of an emotional issue. Common sense does not, need not, apply.
Because of the poor record of several states (and I'm not pointing out Florida as one, but just sayin'...) for keeping CCW permits and weapons in general out of the hands of felons, nuts, Republicans and other socially undesirable people.
I'm not happy about the number of foolish bastards my own state allows to strut around strapped. I REALLY don't want more foolish bastards from Idaho, California and Washington to mistake North Portland for the streets o' Abilene.
IMO a long gun is useful for self-defense in my home, where I know the lay of the ground and have the advantages of a defender. I know perfectly well the combined effects of fear, adrenaline, bad lighting and rapid movement on my and most people's ability to hit what they're aiming at with a hogleg, and I'd just as soon that fewer of them were armed than not.
Now if states required a REAL CCW license, complete with actual, say, 50-target combat pistol course with an 85% hit requirement along with a "you kill/you fail" rule for engaging non hostile targets...then I'd invite all the CCW holders over for a drunken BBQ and target shoot.
Until then, hell, we've got enough problems in-state.
FDChief -- Well...gotta say I think your way off-base on the CCW issue...which several states are you sayin' have poor records? Got any proof -- esp. about felons with CCWs?
GSJ
Oregon is notorious for unregulated gun sales at shows, through private sales and unscrupulous dealers like the cheap pawn shops down in Lents.
As for other states, The Burr study in Florida came up with a figure of about 1/3rd of all armed felons got their weapon from a private deal, but as many as 1/4 got weapons from "licensed" dealers.
Plus Oregon's CCW process is exceptionally lax. Oregon is a "must issue" state, meaning that if you don't have a felony record and can pass the pretty pathetic NCIS check the county sheriff HAS to issue a permit. History of restraining orders and mental health issues have not kept people from getting permits.
And the sheriffs themselves don't know who they've issued CCWs/CHLs to. In March of this year the Deschutes County sheriff reported a total of 6,671 CHLs issued to county residents. The Oregon State Police? Well, they knew of 6,156. So somewhere in Deschutes County there are about a battalion worth of people with CHLs/CCWs that OSP knows nothing about.
My bottom line is this: most people are crappy handgun owners and users. They don't secure their weapons and ammunition, don't practice enough to hit shit, and are a bigger danger to me hauling out the hogleg and blasting away into the brown than the felon trying to jockeybox my truck they're shooting at.
So I stand by my original statement. Until the issuing states take the time to ensure that the people they license can keep and use the weapons safely and accurately, the fewer people walking around my state with pistols, the better.
Off topic, I know, but here's my question:
Thinking about what I wrote, I realize that I'm not nearly as worried about criminals with firearms (they'll get them regardless of the law) as I am about the lawyer from Lake Oswego with the Walther PPK he neither knows nor cares enough to practice with who can get a CHL/CCW anytime he applies for one who gets pissed off at his ex and shows up at her fitness club at 3pm and starts blasting. I don't worry nearly as much about him putting one in her ten-ring (sucks to be her, but that's a criminal justice problem) as him missing her by six meters and putting the stray round in my ass.
I threw out the notion of a practical test for a CHL/CCW off the top of my head, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
What would the readers here think about a federal CHL/CCW that would require:
1. A national background check that would require you to be a) a citizen without b) felony convictions, a history of mental illness or a restraining order within the past, say, 4 years, and
2. A required practical exam which would consist of safely clearing, disassembling, cleaning, reassembling, loading, firing, clearing and safeing the weapon. It would also include a "Hogan's Alley" type marksmanship course where you would be required to engage both stationary and moving targets within some easy range, say, 15 meters - which would include both hostile and nonhostile targets. You'd have to hit, say 80% of the stationary targets and 60% of the moving targets. Any miss greater than a body width, or a single hit on a nonhostile target would be a no-go.
Plus to keep your permit you'd have to requalify, say, every three years up to age 65 and every year after that.
Hell, if that was the standard, I'd support a federal subsidy to purchase an accuratized Browning Hi-Power for every adult able to pass.
Thoughts?
Chief,
The CCW permits require a fee/tax to be paid for exercising one's constitutionally gtd right. Do we pay poll taxes to vote? And why not?
You are mixing concepts and topics when you talk about gunshow sales and then ccw topics. These are 2 distinctly different issues.
I question the legality of ccw's. I WILL NOT GET ONE B/C AS A CITIZEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY IF I SO DESIRE.This is obviously not the law but that's my law.
Your arguments against ccw across state lines also applies to drivers licenses and other licenses- are Ms drivers license easier to pass than a Ma license?
jim
FDChief.
A national background check is the first step to a police state.
Yes i mean this and am not joking.
jim
Jim: In what way would a federal check differ from what the county sheriffs do now, other than in being at least consistent and thorough, instead of half the time thorough and the other half ate up?
ISTM that there's only two options here: let everyone who wants one carry, or have some sort of screening process to weed out the most totally nutzoid and dangerous. If I have to choose, I'll take door #2.
"Your arguments against ccw across state lines also applies to drivers licenses and other licenses- are Ms drivers license easier to pass than a Ma license?"
Probably. Or, more to the point, is it easier to get a DL in rural Gilliam County than in Washington or Multnomah County? And if it is, do I want some rube from Gilliam County driving around in urban Portland?
The difference is that a car or truck has a lot of uses. A firearm has one: to kill someone. (Or to threaten someone, but it comes to the same thing, since only a fool draws a weapon without being prepared to use it to kill).
That's why I'd argue for a federal standard for firearms but not dirver's licenses. In effect, by carrying a loaded weapon, I'm making the statement "I am a competent judge of when to use this weapon and, when I use it, to use it on the target I intend and no other".
Officers to whom the state issues firearms are required to meet fairly exacting standards of discretion and accuracy with them.
Why shouldn't I, as a citizen, require my government to require that degree of competence from citizens, including me, who are armed in public?
FDChief,
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep-csn&y
The federal checks are being used to gather intelligence and data for the day when guns will be confiscated.
Otherwise why is the Fed even in this business.? This is a state function. Why not issue a firearms acquisition form, free of charge that is issued by the states? FYI- people w. ccw's do not have a wait period. In effect a ccw and faform would be the check. Canada uses a form like this.
Also Chief you need to catch up to the latest. The Brady Bill reqd Sheriffs to do background checks and this was defeated in the SC since the Fed can't require State/local govt. to perform a function unless the funds to do so are provided. At least that's my interpretation. Sheriffs only approve applications for class 3 purchases that I'm aware of. And of course the cost to own a class 3 wpn is 200$ tax stamp. Is this an infringement.?
Live free or die. I remember reading that in a history book- ancient history.
Isn't filling out a yellowsheet an infringement since if i fail to do so then i can't buy a gun.?
jim
I hear that they're gonna start confiscations with over/under shotguns.
jim
Chief,
Give me some slack- a car is a 2000 lb bullet and kills more people and maims large numbers . Cars are bigger killers than guns. As the old saying goes - my gun has killed less than Ted Kennedy's car.
Guns are works of art as well as tools. I challenge the mindless mantra of the left that guns are only for killing. This just ain't true.
jim
FD Chief -- Gotta admit, you make it all sound pretty reasonable, but I can't help but thinking all those reasonable rules and regs and tests are really just nice names for one or more "infringements." How'd we get from 1791 to 1933 without them?
GSJ
P.S. Glad you mentioned the Browning Hi-Power, but I argue its accurate enough as it (IMHO).
Most interesting. FDChief said:
"Officers to whom the state issues firearms are required to meet fairly exacting standards of discretion and accuracy with them."
I'd like to point out that there have been several serious "fails" in the past couple of years by officers in several of our cities of both discretion and accuracy in shooting incidents. In light of that, asking local government to design a course and test CC applicants, holding them to a "higher" standard seems an unattainable expectation.
I've watched several police officers shoot in my lifetime and their skills run from left to right on the bell curve - and these were supposedly well-trained in handgun skills.
No local government will ever fund a handgun training class similar to what you'd like to see.
I find myself agreeing with rangeragainstwar - when I feel the need to carry a handgun, I'll do so.
"How'd we get from 1791 to 1933 without them?"
GSJ: Well, what helped was that we were a pretty rural nation, where an asshole with a gun couldn't get in your face as easily as today. And there were fewer people overall, so ditto.
jeg43: I was and still am, a great believer that most urban cops are shitty handgunners. If I was the Chief of Police, you bet my guys'd be at the range more. And, especially, they'd get a LOT more training on situational awareness, so they'd know when NOT to shoot. That's an even bigger problem than marksmanship.
Look, I'm not some sort of anti-gun nut here. I have both rifles and shotguns, enjoy the hell out of shooting them, and would fight like hell if someone tried to legislate my right to shoot and hunt our of existence.
BUT.
We're an increasingly urban nation, and our hunting and shooting tradition is dying. And the reality is, as it always was, that a lot of people are jackholes. In an earlier America we could either figure out who those people were and cage 'em up before they started shooting, or, when they did, tackle 'em while they were reloading (since six shots from a wheelgun or eight from an M1911 aren't a lot of dead guys).
But we're a different place now. And I'm trying to be a Cassandra for those of us who believe in private firearms. Either we will work to figure out a way to cut down on these church shooting and school shootings and health club shootings or the people out there - the increasing majority who have little tradition with or love for firearms - will impose their fear and anger on the rest of us.
That's all I'm sayin'.
And c'mon, Jim - a firearm is a tool. Like an axe. You can use it to hunt, or shoot at targets. But if you carry a weapon in a crowded public place, you're not hunting and you're not target shooting. The only real use for it is to defend yourself. From people (unless you've seen a cougar lately at the mall, and I don't mean one of those cougars with a Wonderbra and a $40 pedicure). And no defense will work unless your attacker KNOWS that you will kill him (or wound him to the point of disablement) if he doesn't give up or run away. So I'll stand by what I said: a firearm, carried in public, to be used effectively, MUST be used to kill or maim if it comes to it. That's NOT a bad thing, it's just what it is. The firearm isn't the problem. It's the jackhole behind the backsight who isn't competent to know when to use it or hit what he's aiming at.
I can't quote the reference, but I remember a comment that I read once about the days when lots of folk carried handguns openly on a daily basis - it was close to this: "folks were usually carefully polite." For me, this aspect of the questions about concealed carry isn't considered much today, but I think it's obvious that knowing one or more people to be armed in the immediate area is a serious deterrent to would-be criminals. I have read that the notable drop in violent crime that Florida has recently recorded is attributed by some to the large increase in carry permits. I am firmly of the opinion that more guns in public equates to less crime in public.
Unfortunately, Gordon's pointed comment cuts through all the discussion and leaves all of us kinda hanging on reality.
Chief,
If law enforcement were doing their job then we wouldn't need CCWs. They aren't doing so.
I do not carry a firearm and utilize awareness as do you. But if i ever feel the need i will do so w/o a license.
jim
Chief,
I done bin thinkin of ur commints about guns and that they are only for killin.
Let's take this up a notch- if guns are so bad and dangerous for us sissy Americans then why do we export them as if they were as harmless as cigarettes?
US policy is to arm any tinpot leader to the teeth and then here at home try to get us to believe that they are the devils spawn.
We regulate citizens rights but give away guns to repressive regimes. Duh.?!
jim
Post a Comment
<< Home