FORT WAYNE, Ind. (AP) - A congressman from northeastern Indiana is sponsoring a bill that would allow people who legally carry a concealed weapon in their home state to do the same in other states that allow concealed weapons.
U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman says the proposed measure would eliminate confusion among law enforcement and gun owners about which states have agreements about concealed carry laws. He also says the right to self-defense is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment.
He says the law would ensure that if you're legally carrying a concealed firearm in one state, you can do it in another. He says the bill would not force states that prohibit concealed carry to change their laws.
Similar legislation has been proposed before and failed. Seems like common sense to me, but I'm not sure the current gun control hysteria argues for introducing it now. Trying to figure out concealed-carry reciprocity when you're traveling state-to-state is tricky. (See here.) Indiana, for example, honors any valid permit issued by any other state, but only 27 other states honor our concealed-carry permits. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona don't require permits, of residents or visitors either one. Hawaii has concealed carry but does not honor any other state's concealed carry. Well, you get the idea.
Comments
Considering the overabundance of 12 dollar an hour jobs with few if any benefits in his district it would seem Mr. Stutzman would have more to occupy his attention than concealed weapons. A recent quote from Mr. Stutzman regarding the Federal budget is as follows " It's time for Washington to get serious and reform our nation's entitlement's..." Of course this is GOP speak for cutting your benefits. But not his. The Journal Gazette reported that Stutzman has recieved $998,000 in agricultural subsidies since 1995 and claims it's not possible for him to decline the money. However according to Carl Schweikhardt, program specialist for the Farm Service Agency , the USDA operation in Indiana "It's a voluntary program, you can refuse payment on the farm." But not Stutzman. He would rather cut or eliminate if he could the Social Security and Medicare that every person who ever earned a paycheck had money deducted for. But Marlin still keeps his gold plated health insurance. And his $998,000 in taxpayer money. This Tea Party darling considers sacrifice for the little people not the priviliged elite like him. He and his billionare buddies and corporations won't sacrifice and in fact expect even more in the way of tax breaks. But not for you. And not for Marlin the hypocrite who collects a government check and benefits most can only dream of all paid for by the people in his district making $12 an hour. Oh and supplemented by that $998,000. Marlin will work a grand total of 126 days this year as House Majority Leader Cantor recently released the House calander for 2013. That equated to $1380.95 per day worked for Marlin on his $174,000 annual salary. That's almost 5 times what Marlin's average constituant earns working 50 weeks a year. The other 239 days Marlin will be sucking up to corporations and billionare sponsored PAC's to beg money for his campaign war chest. And propose hidden gun legislation while you work for $12 and hour.
Joe's puerile harangue against Mr. Stutzman reminds me of some of the case studies in Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book "The Liberal Mind."
I used to go out behind the barn and plink away for hours on end. Bare farmland for a mile, then a wooded area, and the only road ran between the farmland and the woods, and we could see a half-mile either way down that road. It was about as safe a place for plinking as you could imagine.
In New York, they have the Sullivan Act. I can't imagine a safe place anywhere in the city where you could sight in a rifle at 300 yards - the land is just too expensive for that.
I find it odd that the same people who are against federalism in every other regard find it quite reasonable to encourage it in thie respect.
The thing is, CCW permits are handed out more liberally some places than others. If locality A hands out CCWs to habitual drunkards, and locality B doesn't, honoring locality As CCWs in locality B infringes on the right of the general citizenry from being threatened with the bullets fired by drunken conventioneers.
The vast majority of all residents are going to be OK with regard to weapons. Some don't know how to handle them safely, but they generally self-select by not arming themselves. The whole point of CCWs isn't to authorize the average guy, but to prohibit the guy who is a danger to the rest of us - and as long as different localities have different ideas about that, we really ought not have people from lax localities infringing on the safety of more restricyive neighborhoods.
A farmer near Chester Center (think Southern Wells) could reasonably have a shotgun in the back window of his F-150 to deal with someone stealing cattle. He sure can't wait for the sheriff's office, about 15 miles away, to respond to his 911 call. On the other hand, someone owning a tobacco shop across the street from the City-County building probably doesn't need a loaded weapon in the passenger compartment of his BMW.