Criminals allowed carry permits!?

[Ironbear]

I suppose showing of examples of politicians making stupid statements is beating a dead horse... or mission without end, depending on your point of view. But this article here pretty much sums up how some view permits and permit holders.

“This legislation could change Times Square into the OK Corral,” Schumer said. “To allow criminals to go to other states, get a permit for concealed carry, and then carry their guns concealed here is outrageous.” (emphasis mine)

So... does he mean that criminals can get carry permits in other states; or that people who want permits, are by definition, criminals?

[harryset]

He's referring to Open-Reciprocity. Which I think is a great idea, as long as you can get the States to come up with a carry law agreeable to all.

[bensdad]

He's referring to Open-Reciprocity. Which I think is a great idea, as long as you can get the States to come up with a carry law agreeable to all.

Holy cow, I start having convulsionse every time I see one of us freedom-loving types advocate this. You have to see the trap. A carry law that would be "agreeable to all", would only be agreeable to "all" politicians. It will create a federal standard for permit requirements (a right - and a job - taken from the several states) that might include fingerprints, $200 classes, interviews with neighbors, gun you carry listed on your permit, no carry in churches and God only knows what else. Please stop falling for the idea that fed. involvement is EVER our friend.

[VikesFan1]

So... does he mean that criminals can get carry permits in other states

This spew is what he's trying to pass off.

[xd ED]

He's referring to Open-Reciprocity. Which I think is a great idea, as long as you can get the States to come up with a carry law agreeable to all.

Holy cow, I start having convulsionse every time I see one of us freedom-loving types advocate this. You have to see the trap. A carry law that would be "agreeable to all", would only be agreeable to "all" politicians. It will create a federal standard for permit requirements (a right - and a job - taken from the several states) that might include fingerprints, $200 classes, interviews with neighbors, gun you carry listed on your permit, no carry in churches and God only knows what else. Please stop falling for the idea that fed. involvement is EVER our friend.

^^^THIS^^^

[harryset]

He's referring to Open-Reciprocity. Which I think is a great idea, as long as you can get the States to come up with a carry law agreeable to all.

Holy cow, I start having convulsionse every time I see one of us freedom-loving types advocate this. You have to see the trap. A carry law that would be "agreeable to all", would only be agreeable to "all" politicians. It will create a federal standard for permit requirements (a right - and a job - taken from the several states) that might include fingerprints, $200 classes, interviews with neighbors, gun you carry listed on your permit, no carry in churches and God only knows what else. Please stop falling for the idea that fed. involvement is EVER our friend.

I see your point. . .So now the whiners that can't carry out of state can be quiet? Or is there another option? Not pi$$ing here, just asking.

[Mn01r6]

He's referring to Open-Reciprocity. Which I think is a great idea, as long as you can get the States to come up with a carry law agreeable to all.

Holy cow, I start having convulsionse every time I see one of us freedom-loving types advocate this. You have to see the trap. A carry law that would be "agreeable to all", would only be agreeable to "all" politicians. It will create a federal standard for permit requirements (a right - and a job - taken from the several states) that might include fingerprints, $200 classes, interviews with neighbors, gun you carry listed on your permit, no carry in churches and God only knows what else. Please stop falling for the idea that fed. involvement is EVER our friend.

Not necessarily true - we could conceivably have a federal law that extends the full faith and credit of a state-issued permit to carry / CWP to all states via the interstate commerce clause. (Much like a drivers' license). I would obviously like to see the interstate commerce clause rolled back to Pre- Wickard v. Filburn, but the socialists love that clause...we should start to use it against them and maybe we could agree on some reasonable limits on what powers are actually reserved to the states and to the people.

[mrp]

Not necessarily true - we could conceivably have a federal law that extends the full faith and credit of a state-issued permit to carry / CWP to all states via the interstate commerce clause. (Much like a drivers' license).

"Full faith and credit" does not require one state to honor the drivers license from any other state. (It might apply to the license as a form of identification, but not as a license to drive.) Full Faith and Credit didn't require states to honor the marriage licenses of inter-racial couples. (Due process and Equal protection won the day). But hey, if we can get everyone to agree that the clause applies to carry permits, we can quit arguing about same-sex marriage licenses.

I think this is what allows people to drive in MN without a MN license:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=171.02

171.02 LICENSES; TYPES, ENDORSEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS.
Subdivision 1.License required; duplicate identification restricted.

(a) Except when expressly exempted, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a street or highway in this state unless the person has a valid license under this chapter for the type or class of vehicle being driven.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=171.03

171.03 PERSONS EXEMPT.
The following persons are exempt from license hereunder:
...
(d) A nonresident who is at least 15 years of age and who has in immediate possession a valid driver's license issued to the nonresident in the home state or country may operate a motor vehicle in this state only as a driver.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/235/610/case.html

The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state.
In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And, to this end, it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horsepower of the engines -- a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens, and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

In the case of Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1868), the Court said the following:

It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.

The Court went on to explain that the laws of one state would not become effective in another: "It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States." These sections of Paul v. Virginia are still good law, and were relied upon, for example, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).

[Texastransplant]

Texas can be asked to honor out of state PTC's. By law, the AG has to review reciprocityevery year. We don't need the fedcoats to get involved when many states already have a petition process to honor other states' permits.

And yes, I have already asked the Texas AG to review and honor the MN PTC, as the standards up here are almost exactly the same.

[SamM]

I'm under the assumption that this was a spoiler to the entire bill. Originally it was meant to be part of the bill but some Dems forced it in as an amendment. At least I want to believe that Toomey intended it that way...

I don't know what BS Schumer was vomiting, I don't know of any state that will issue a PTC to a convicted felon. But slinging lies are how these things get passed or shot down...so to speak.

[river_boater]

Holy cow, I start having convulsionse every time I see one of us freedom-loving types advocate this. You have to see the trap. A carry law that would be "agreeable to all", would only be agreeable to "all" politicians. It will create a federal standard for permit requirements (a right - and a job - taken from the several states) that might include fingerprints, $200 classes, interviews with neighbors, gun you carry listed on your permit, no carry in churches and God only knows what else. Please stop falling for the idea that fed. involvement is EVER our friend.

This is why I'm okay with things just the way they are. You want to carry in other states? Get a Florida permit.

We don't need Washington making carry laws.