©
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Americans' right to own and bear arms, but both of those rulings stopped well short of permitting anyone to carry a gun anytime and anywhere.
Some members of Congress, however, are pushing that way. A House bill would effectively override state restrictions on concealed firearms and allow anyone with a permit from one state to carry in any other that permits concealed weapons.
In other words, a concealed-carry permit holder could remain armed in any state but Illinois.
The immediate aim is an end run on states that have enacted gun control legislation that doesn't meet the approval of the National Rifle Association.
The organization's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, touted the proposal in a recent column describing its necessity: "The problem is that some states allow visiting permit holders from other states to exercise their right to carry, and some states do not. As you can imagine, this presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line....
"NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a top priority because it restores a fundamental, inalienable right guaranteed to all law-abiding Americans by the Second Amendment."
The right to carry a weapon is hardly all-encompassing, let alone inalienable, as the Supreme Court noted in its District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago rulings.
Those rulings upheld Americans' rights to own guns by overturning laws that prohibited people from possessing a handgun in their own homes. But the court stopped far short of endorsing the NRA's goal, let alone finding a right to carry a concealed weapon everywhere.
Instead, the court ruled, state and local authorities may well impose restrictions on who can carry a weapon, and when and where they may do so. The extent of those restrictions remains undecided.
But forcing states to recognize others' permits for carrying concealed weapons is an unnecessary encroachment on states' responsibilities to tailor public-safety strategies to their circumstances and constituencies.
The bar for concealed carry permits is much lower in Virginia than in Maryland, a direct result of legislation drafted and approved by state lawmakers elected by voters in each state.
An inconvenience for those who'd like to tote guns across the Potomac and walk around town armed? Sure.
An unconstitutional infringement on an inalienable right? No, on both counts.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
End run?
Contrary to the implication in this article, mandating reciprocity is no "end run" around anything. Congress has enumerated authority under Article IV Sections 1. and 2. to guarantee, by general law, that all states honor the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the several states, and that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." There is no "end run". This is proper, constitutional law that comports with the provisions of the 10th Amendment.
I'm not aware of another amendment applied so inconsistantly
For instance I won't need to register with the State that I'm a Baptist. When I turned 18 I didn't have to have a waiting period to vote. I don't need a permit to write a scathing column.
Great... we have a "right to bear arms that can't be infringed"....
but it's infringed varyingly, daily, and by all three levels (municipality, state, national) of government.
Let's follow this logic shall we?
Our FEDERAL Constitution informs government at all levels that all government MUST respect our rights. That's a good thing. The Constitution is clear that our rights not clearly enumerated to the FEDERAL government are reserved for the STATES and for THE PEOPLE. But, our right to own and bear firearms IS enumerated as a FEDERAL responsibility - and CONGRESS makes those laws in adherence with the Constitution.
Our right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's very clear.
Using the logic in this editorial, each state and/or locality is free to infringe on our Constitutional rights all they want because, well ... um, because the people infringing upon our rights were "elected" in the state or local governments that made new laws to infringe upon our Constitutional rights? Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up : )
Meanwhile in today's Pilot Donald Luzzatto explains just how broken the political process as become in the manner in which people are "elected" in our state to govern (i.e. gerrymandering voting districts to avoid any competition at the ballot box)!
Face it; the "election process" is broken and corrupt. But our Constitution remains as a foundation from which our RIGHTS are protected against Government infringement.
Too bad the 6 people that make up the Pilot's editorial board have so much trouble understanding this.
First I would like to point
First I would like to point out that it isn't our election process that is broken and corrupt but the politicians that continually try to keep themselves at the public trough. I say we kick them all out!
Secondly, It makes a lot of sense to have concealed carry permits maintain the same continuity as a drivers license, marriage license, or car registration. The requirements for drivers licenses and marriage licenses vary state to state also but you don't lose your driving privileges or become single when you leave the state (except for Las Vegas of course, what hapens in Vegas stays in Vegas). This law would provide the same for a person with a concealed weapon permit. The real shame is that a law is needed to force this kind of reciprocity. Apparently the pilot seems to think a concealed weapon permit is a bad thing. Why they are against a citizen with government approval carrying a weapon for self defense I have no idea. I am sure if some state tried to say that a gay couple that married in another state is not married here the Pilots opinion would be just the opposite.
Recognizing permits and licenses
Do our driver's license somehow loose their validity when we drive into into Illinois or any other state?
So only our 2nd amendment rights are infringed upon when we leave the Commonwealth. All the others remain intact.