National ccw reciprocity bill generating debate

July 21, 2009

The amendment offered up for consideration by South Dakota Republican John Thune to create National reciprocity among states that issue concealed carry licenses is generating a lot of debate from both sides of the issue.

The anti-gun side is mounting the usual attacks, saying this would lead to an increase in crime. As if concealed carry licensees in Pennsylvania have been waiting for just this opportunity to cross the border into Ohio and go on a crime spree.

One of the lies being toted is that this amendment to the defense spending bill would allow ccw holders to take guns across state lines. Of course, there is no such prohibition right now, only that they cannot carry their handgun in another state if they do not have a permit for that state or one that state recognizes. Many states already have reciprocity agreements or otherwise recognize the permits of other states.

What these critics fail to report is that this does nothing more than allow someone who is already allowed to carry a firearm for self defense in their own state to do so in another state subject to the visited state's own rules. Some anti-gun democrats are so afraid the bill will pass they are trying to halt the democratic process and not even allow it to be considered. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are threatening to filibuster the amendment.

On the other side of the aisle, some pro-gun pundits are wary of enacting national controls on the issue of concealed carry. It has long been feared by those in states with more lax rules for issuance that more stringent restrictions would be placed on their own residents for obtaining a concealed handgun license. Another fear is that a national license would be created and mandated, and that this license could then be changed by an anti-gun administration to become a may-issue license given only to a select few with special privileges and that state permits would be ruled invalid.

Another concern is that state's rights are further being eroded by federal mandate, though that argument can be countered by pointing out each state still has it's own criteria for issuance in place and their laws must be followed by nonresidents who would then be little different from that state's own residents.

The issue may be resolved in the next 48 hours as action on the amendment is expected by tomorrow at the latest.