Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
July 22nd, 2009
09:14 AM ET

Gun Privileges Across States?

The Senate is expected to vote today on an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry concealed guns across state lines, as long as they have a valid permit. What is perhaps more noteworthy is that in addition to the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, some Senate Democrats - including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - have said they support the amendment.

Do you think this is a bad idea or a good idea? If you live in one of the 48 states with concealed gun laws, do you think somebody with another state's concealed weapon permit should be allowed to carry in your state?


Filed under: Heidi Collins
soundoff (297 Responses)
  1. Melissa

    Law abiding citizens who register their weapons are not the problem in any state, or when these citizens cross state lines with their weapons. So it does not make sense to restrict registered gun-owners from crossing state lines with their weapons for to restrict them from carrying these weapons. Again, these aren't the people committing gun crime and violence. Restricting registered gun owners does nothing at all to reduce gun crime and violence–another route is necessary for this.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  2. Russell J. Coller Jr.

    Ask any cop: are criminals terrified of an easy score turning into a gunfight? The predators always panic when the good people draw down. Don't kid yourself... out-of-state gunfighters make your state safer.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  3. Debbie Nipper

    I am definately for this! It is our right to carry, legally.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  4. Mallory

    The constitution's second amendment says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    This clearly says that people in a well-regulated militia have the right to bear arms. Let's face it- this was written for the late 1700's/early 1800's. This was not written for a time such as ours when bearing arms means Ak-47's from car dealerships in Missouri and stories such as Seung-Hui Cho from Virginia Tech.

    Police officers (who go through much more training and testing than any civilian) should be able to keep weapons as long as it is in a safe or locked away so not just anyone can get to the weapon(s). Learn responsibility folks!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  5. Woodrow Williams

    Gun laws should be honored from state to state.
    This is the UNITED States. Why aren't they?
    regards... Woodrow

    July 22, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  6. gregg

    what about someone bring their legal gay marraige acoss state lines? i guess states rights only count when republicans like what they are fighting for.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:24 am |
  7. Thomas

    The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights states very succinctly that "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...." What part of "shall not be infringed" does our government not understand? We already have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. Congressional approval is simply redundant and unnecessary.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:24 am |
  8. michael armstrong sr.

    The second amendment says we have the right to bare arms but the government should have a rights age to keep guns out of the hands of kids if there going hunting with a leagle adult then they need to have a tempoary permit gang members or suspected gang members should not have guns or amanition period.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:24 am |
  9. Rhoda Ubaechu

    Why have guns in the first place- for protection? What if nobody but the police were allowed to carry gun. Who would kill who with a gun, there wouldnt be virginia shooting b/c he had no gun. Ban individual from getting guns, and there would be no need for carrying consealed weapon b/c nobody would need it period.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:24 am |
  10. Richard A.

    I agree with the idea of allowing concealed weapons to be transported across state lines, as long as thos eindividuals have the legally acquired concealed weapons permits. The right to bear arms must be respected by all states, interstate transport of concealed weapons should be a nationally accepted right given to us by our NATIONAL constitution.

    Thank you

    Richard A. (Bonita Springs, FL)

    July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  11. Steven

    A drivers license is valid outside the state of issue. Why not a concealed carry permit?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  12. Dave

    As it stands, states have the right to decide whether or not they will accept a concealed carry permit from any individual state. States consider their own concealed carry laws, then accept and/or restrict the conceal carry rights of residents of other states. This is done on a state by state basis.

    The system seems to be working. Rather than wasting time on trying to micro-manage state issues, our legislators needs to focus on things that actually fall within their paygrade.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  13. Alonzo

    I have a license to carry and the process I had to go through to get my permit was long and timely. Bleeding heart Liberals and their Lobbyists put up all sorts of “Roadblocks ” to limit my “RIGHT” to own and carry a gun. Right Wing Conservatives want guns for everyone. Why does Middle America have to pay for the ideological war of these two "Extremists". Allow those of us who “Follow the Law” to own and carry guns and do not penalize us for the mistakes of a few.
    This is America people!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  14. Mike

    I think it would be fine for states to have to recognize each others CCW permits, as long as they all have to recognize each others marriages, i.e. CT, MA, IA, you get my point. After all, fair's fair.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  15. Dyna

    People forget that the laws we make only effect those that are law abiding. The lawless will have guns and carry them where ever they wish regardless of any laws. While there are some people who obtain weapons legally that will use them illegally, as a law abiding person, I would like the option to protect myself should I need to and feel confident enough to do so.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  16. Greg S

    Heidi – I am a permit holder and a respectful, law abiding citizen. I have been very active in shooting sports for years, and many friends of mine do the training for gun permits. I have found this group of concerned citizens to be the most law abiding types in the country, and genuinely concered for their safety and the safety of others.
    I believe if one has gone through the training to receive a permit, it should be considered across states. I dont believe the federal government should make this decision, however. Gun law should be left to the states.

    GS

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  17. Mark

    As a Canadian. I think that Americans are crazy and paranoid if they think that they need a gun to feel safe. I would feel unsafe if 80% of the population had guns in Canada.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  18. Alexandra

    How does this amendment prevent citizens from crossing state borders to obtain a permit and bring in more firearms? Allowing concealed weapons is as dangerous as putting an SUV on the road–it just depends on the individual operating it. I don't support the amendment.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  19. michele reynolds

    Absolutely not. Example: states where a convicted domestic violence felon may get concealed carry permits and could not in another state will now be able to move across those state lines perhaps to track down the prior victim! This idea will cost lives and money at the state level. It is not about protection it is about the power of the NRA over Congress and the White House Obama included unfortunately.
    M. Reynolds
    Laguna Beach Ca

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  20. Hale from Illinois

    Yes, I think people who have qualified to carry should be able to protect themselves even in the States who have failed to realize that allowing the criminals to carry guns, and telling their citizens they cannot, does nothing but raise the crime rate.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  21. David Ferrebee

    I think this is a great idea. The criminal are going to commit crimes regardless. They will either get an illegal firearm or use some other means. It is a proven fact that violent crime is lower in areas where potential victims can be armed. Let's face it, most criminals are cowards. Why let them know they have an advantage?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  22. Chris

    I think it's great, and I believe a person with a valid CCW permit should be allowed to carry their weapon with them into my state as I should be allowed to carry my weapon into their state. As long as people have valid permits indicating that they are qualified to carry concealed weapons there shouldn't be any problem with traveling to different states. Because if you're qualified in Florida, then you're qualified in Michigan and vice versa.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  23. Ashton Ray

    It works for drivers licenses, responsible people should be able to defend themselves no matter where they travel.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  24. Dave L.

    Article II of the Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...People carrying guns is NOT a well regulated Militia! As the Constitution is a living document, it should be updated to remove guns from all but a "well regulated militia"!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  25. Terry

    Yes! concealed carry across state lines should be allowed. The people who go to the trouble and expence of getting a permit are the good guys. They are exactly who you want around when the police are not close by. Would you not want someone with CPR training helping you until the Paramedics arrived? Remember when SECONDS count the Police are only MINUTES away.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  26. robert gillary

    yes you should be aloud to carry a gun with a permit accross the united states. pleople like mayor bloomberg a communists with money i am averterian and i fought for these rights

    July 22, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  27. Joe Collins

    The “SECOND AMMENDMENT” is my concealed carry permit, I should need no other.
    No man should have the right to tell me how to protect my life or the life and safety of my family. That is a god given right to all free men. Or are we no longer free men?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  28. Lynn

    Heidi,

    I strongly disagree with the idea that gun privileges should exist across states. States laws are sovreign in their state and pass laws that are enforced accordingly. This would be ill-advised.

    Secondly, there are far too many guns in this country as it is. Why on earth do people not in law enforcement NEED a concealed weapon?

    This is just wrong.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  29. GARY

    YES

    July 22, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  30. Anita

    The 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. We have the right to defend ourselves any place in this country==if we are in a place someone could attack us==as has happened in our churches and schools and parks===we have the right to a weapon to defend our life.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  31. john hopkins

    While the federal constitution forbids restricting gun access, common sense in the age of gun madness would argue that individual communities or states should be allowed to restrict gun access if they feel the risk of harm to them from guns outweighs their risk of a runaway government. The feds should not pass an amendment to block such common sense.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:29 am |
  32. Bruce Bartels

    I think that it is a good idea to allow law abiding gun owners with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon in any state. These people have successfully passed background checks to obtain their permit.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  33. Alex

    As a recipient of a concealed carry permit in Louisiana, I am happy to support states rights and help gay marriage be honored in my state in return for the respect for the far higher standard I am held to obtain a concealed carry permit in my state in other states. I am sorry my state does not honor the constitution by honoring a gay marriage in Mass. or NY. Although it was those states who argued though warfare against states rights. Perhaps Mr. Bloomberg should do some soul searching; you used guns against us, now you want back what you took away through violence?!!?!?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  34. S. McKnight

    First of all, the right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, not a priviledge, constitutionally protected. Second, the constitution also states that documents issued by one state shall be recognized as valid in all; such is how we can drive with valid licenses or remain married when we cross state lines from Seattle to Miami. Why is it that a CCW is the only state issued document that this recognition does NOT apply to?
    Of course the congress should pass such legislation mandating the recognition of CCW permits issued by other states, but I would further argue that they should not have to for the reason stated above.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  35. Maria

    Is a bab, bab, bab idea. But check the number of senators with interest in gun money,we will know the vote.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  36. douglas daigle

    Yes, everyone deserves to be able to defend themselves against the criminal element of today.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  37. Bert

    90 % of crime involving hand guns are weapons that are not registered, stolen or bought off the street or some sort of black market and rendering them untraceable in most cases.

    I hold a conceiled weapons permit and my gun is registered legally and and is for protection only. It would be a great thing if law biding citizens could feel safe accross the country by bieng allowed to carry there weapons legally.

    Thank you.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  38. Andrea

    I think this is a very good idea, everyone should be able to protect theirself. There are many illegal guns on the streets so why can't the good people be able to carry a gun from state to state especially when traveling; not just the bad guys. I am a military wife and I have to travel with my two kids when my husband is deployed. I worry about someone trying to do somthing awful to us when we are driving on the road.

    Thank you,
    Andrea

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  39. Eugene

    No! and guns should be banned."A lot of the people who keep a gun at home for safety are the same ones who refuse to wear a seat belt”"..And Canadians are like Americans but without a gun.. is that why Canada's crime rate is s low?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  40. Jim Reilly

    I believe the bill being introduced iincludes this:

    Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  41. Keith Van Kirk

    My driver's license and my marriage license is good in all states, my license to carry a concealed weapon should be too. I am a law abiding citizen and my right to self defense is a fundamental right given to me by my creator, which even preceeds the constitution, but still I must pay a fee and jump through hoops for this little piece of paper.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  42. John from NH

    I would support this law , I live in NH and have my permit to carry a concealed weapon, and I would like to travel with my weapon to Mass or any other state. I visit Mass. a lot for business and family and I used to have an out of state permit for Mass. but I don't now due to the ever increasing fee's that Mass. charges to apply for these out of state permits that have to be renewed every year. I find that it's more of a revenue issue than a safety issue.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  43. Darold

    Heidi,

    I feel it would be aproperate to be able to carry a concealed weapon across state lines but set up a system to where you let the other states know you will be in there state with a proper permit from your state

    July 22, 2009 at 9:31 am |
  44. Eric

    Ofcourse they should. Jersey needs to get on the bandwagon. The last thing one would want is to have the ability to carry and not have any protection when needed. CRIME CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:32 am |
  45. Tom

    No, there is something called states rights. States have the right to say who within their state has a right to carry a concealed weapon. If they want to carry a weapon, let them strap it to their hip.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:32 am |
  46. ceseeley

    Heidi;

    I one cannot protect their family anywhere in the United States and it takes a gun to do it, then it become a legal matter!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:33 am |
  47. Brad Keasler

    Finally the politicians are doing something right. Legal gun owners should have this right to carry their guns where ever we go in this great country. We are not someone to fear, we want to protect ourselves and it is my 2nd ammendment right to own a gun and transporting it should be allowed in these UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:33 am |
  48. Sly, Michigan

    I'm a retired NYC police officer now living in Michigan, and i do have a license to carry a concealed weapon in my state, and i have traveled from one state to another with my weapon not knowing if it was legal to do so or not. I know it's a good idea to permit a person like myself to travel from one state to another without penalty or prosecution.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:33 am |
  49. Connie Maltin

    Nobody should be walking around with a gun – period!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:33 am |
  50. Alan

    Yes Remember these permits are only given to law abiding citizens. We should be allowed to protect our families and ourselves wherever we are in this country. Many people don't seem to realize that criminals are criminals because they don't abide by the laws and those or us that are law abiding citizens should not be penalized because of other states stricter laws. I believe a law abiding citizen with a concealed weapon is very much a deterrent to the criminals. Would you care to take the chance of robbing a person that may very well be armed?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:34 am |
  51. Stu Strickler

    You have as much right to defend yourself in New York as you do in Missouri. A concealed carry license is no different than a drivers licence! Both should be given full credit anywhere in the United States.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:34 am |
  52. Fred A. Wilson

    Those who have concealed gun permits have gone thru background checks, fingerprints placed on file and checked, photographed and required training. These individuals are not the criminals, but citizens wanting to protect their selves and their loved ones. 37 States now honor permits issued from other states and 13 other states should.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:34 am |
  53. Mike N

    Criminals by definition do not follow the law, so legislation that currently prohibits individuals from carrying concealed weapons across state lines only affect law abiding citizens. The individual that disregards the law will not be affected if this legislation fails. However, law abiding citizens that do travel across state lines and wants to ensure their personal protection could unintentionally violate another state’s laws concerning permits to carry.

    I do not believe that passing legislation allowing law abiding citizens to exercise the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines will suddenly cause people to become criminals. Rather, it will allow the law abiding citizen to remain a law abiding citizen.

    I would agree that a national standard for carrying concealed weapons is needed to add a measure of uniformity utilizing reasonable checks. (ex. criminal background checks, must be in possession of a valid permit with a picture id attached)

    July 22, 2009 at 9:34 am |
  54. P.Sommers

    I am female, retired, 62 yrs. old and have carried a gun with permit for about 30 years. I'm planning to drive across country,and certain states require I unload my gun and stow it in the trunk.
    Rest stops in those states will be scary. Wish me luck.
    P. Sommers
    Pittsburgh

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  55. Michael Wader

    Art IV sec 1 of the constitution states that the legal documents of one state must be recognized by the other states in the same way that one states drivers license must be recognized by the other states in the same way that a gay marriage from mass. must be recognized by the other states. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and we cannot pick and choose or deny rights like a cafeteria menu. The constitution is inviolate and rights cannot be bartered away or withheld.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  56. hossdaddy

    We should have the right to go from state to state with our permits, all states should accept other states permits, permit holders are law biding citizens, after all we still live in the land of the free and home of the brave and if every home owner owned a gun crime rate would drop,

    Thank You
    Hoss
    Clearwater FL

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  57. Alex

    What if college campuses operated like a state system? For example, Virginia Tech has a strict "no concealed firearms" rule, but in this example, only out-of-state students have the right to carry a firearm if they have a permit. That doesn't make students feel safer.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  58. Bruce Cavanaugh

    USMC Retired Yes this is a good idea and should be passed!

    Our founding fathers new how important have bear arms is, just take a look at the world and you will notice FREE countries have the right to have guns an countries that are not free have no guns.

    I have a license to carry and travel allot and it is very hard looking up each states gun laws we should have one National Gun Permit

    We each have the right to protect ourself and millions of us have fought and died to protect this right.

    I urge Washington to pass this bill remember is is and always be, "we the people"

    July 22, 2009 at 9:36 am |
  59. Pawan

    I believe the guns owners should not be allowed to carry guns to other states if you are just on a pleasure trip to other states.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:36 am |
  60. Travis Kirkland

    The research is good, where concealed carry is legal, crimes against people go down. It may sound trite but people kill people, not guns or cars or knives. Or should we look to control cars, knives, and rocks like gun controllers would guns. If we use number of killed annually as a criteria for outlawing something, cars are gonners.

    The founding fathers understood the role of gun ownership and gun possession in a free society and how guns can keep that society free from too much government.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:37 am |
  61. Roy Stewart

    Yes, I fully support the idea of states honoring other states CCW permits. However, this whole idea of permits is unnecessary. All 50 states should follow VT and AK law on CCW and automatically allow any citizen to carry a concealed weapon, without permits, permissions, papers, background checks, or any other intrusive government interference. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitutional all ready allows all US citizens the “...right to keep and bare arms...” and it also states that said right “...shall NOT be infringed.” CCW permitting is an infringement of citizens 2nd amendment rights! All CCW permitting needs to stop and all citizens need to be allow to carry a concealed weapon.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:37 am |
  62. mark r keller md

    As a concealed carry permit holder from North Carolina, I believe that the vetting they performed on me pretty much guaranteed my law abiding record and I believe my training was very thorough. While I do not have experience with other states, the media firestorm that would result from a holder being involved in a violent crime suggests other states would be at least as careful. I believe this is borne out by holders' low rate of revocation and almost nonexistent crime rate. In other words we're not a bunch of cowboys gallivanting across the country itching for a gun fight. Of course any out of state permit holder has the responsibility to be aware of laws concerning concealed carry in the state they're visiting.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:38 am |
  63. Joel

    Heidi – I am a CCW trained and licensed person. My state has reciprocity with 25 other states. I have also applied and recieved another non-resident license from another state such that I am legal in 32 states. I have gone thru federal background checks to get my license and when I have made purchases.
    Also remember that the DC Court of Appeals has ruled: "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large ... and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." Most states support this view on your protection.
    It is safer to handle you own safety the expect the police to do it.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:38 am |
  64. taylor

    I think it is an American right to carry your gun where ever you want.I think it is a good idea to let people carry their guns across state lines because it's a right.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:38 am |
  65. Francisco Castro

    We should allow people to carry guns across state lines. Gun owners have already passed background checks and training on their home states and will not be a problem to the general public. As more state budget cuts go into effect and more criminals are released from jails we'll have less protection from our government; we should have the right to feel safe when traveling.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  66. Art De Santis

    Why is this issue a priority? I don't understand the motives of our elected officials. We have so many complex problems requiring attention right now, why are they focusing their efforts on concealed weapon permits? In a time of economic stress with record unemployment shouldn't this issue be lower on the "to-do" list of congress? The NRA must be lining the pockets of both parties.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  67. Mark in CT

    This amendment (if passed) is long overdue. My Father & I both are both longtime CCW permit holders void of any incident. It is important to note that to obtain a permit requires the candidate to undergo a thorough vetting process supported at both the state and federal levels, this includes FBI background check and finger printing. If your state and federal government deem you worthy to have a CCW then your right to carry should not be limited to the issuing state. As a note of interest concealed weapons are NEVER allowed in schools, airports, courthouses and other public and government 'type' facilities, unless of course it is law enforcement related.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  68. Kim Hosilyk

    If you belive in our Constitutions then you know our Constitution has no borders.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  69. Rev. Martin Altizer

    I think that this is a GOOD idea. A driver's licence, valid cross country in all 50 states, allows the licensee to operate a potential deadly weapon, weighing several thousand times as much as a firearm, with minimal traing and background checks. These "weapons" are responsible for far more deaths annually than firearms, the right to carry concealed requires substantial training and background investigation.
    I wish to point out that the original "assault weapon" is still widely available, just as deadly, and requires NO licensing...Cain slew Abel- with a rock. Check out the well precedented legal term "Mens rhea", Unfortunately (or, possibly fortunately), brain scans for intent are still a thing of the future.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  70. Jamal Evans

    The simple answer is no. The question should not be whether or not our government should pass legislation that allows licensed concealed weapons holders to carry their weapons across state lines. The question should be; "what will be the consequences of such a law passing?" A single innocent bystander hit or killed by a bullet it too much. Here's a good question..... What happens when you amend laws and increase the amount of any weapon into a country or society? 1. Criminals exploit the relaxed laws. 2. Accidents increase. 3. Innocent people with no interest of having weapons in their lives are forced to reconsider their position. Consequence: Gun makers get "rich" while our "risk" increases. We need to reduce the amount of weapons on our streets. Set a standard based on crime statistic by state.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  71. a.schneider

    This may sound like a broken record, however those individuals that have concealed weapons permits are allowed to carry their weapons in 33 states at this time. Also those that carry concealed weapons responsibly are not endangering the general public. Those individuals that would do harm to those having a permit or those that cannot protect them selves are the only ones that would be in jeopardy. I am 68 years old and have a permit, generally only carried when traveling. The mayor of New York city is concerned about those that would carry weapons into his city. What about all those people that are carrying guns illegally in his city, with the intent to do harm to others while perusing illegal activities, including crimes against those that cannot protect them selves. How many crimes have been committed by those persons that have a concealed permit?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  72. James D. Bedsole

    What on earth does a state line have to do with carrying a concealed weapon ?. Just because someone is carrying a pistol or gun does not mean they will suddenly stop or start, shooting everyone else just because they cross a state line. Some who carry a gun in the trunk or glove compartment of their car routinely and regularly cross state lines forgetting the gun they have in the car anyway, and if caught, pay a hefty fine for it, which benefits no one except the receiving state. If you check those states which issue permits to carry concealed weapons and have for years, you will find they have no more gun-related crimes than those states which do not issue such permits. I lived in Fla. about 1980 when that state finaly approved such permits and I recall the Tallahassee newspaper headline the next morning reading in big, glaring letters; " And Now The Slaughter Begins". We all waited and waited but the "Slaughter" has not yet begun in that state either. There are a few Wacko's in every state, but a permit is not going to identify them any more than a drivers license does, nor is it going to increase the use of weapons in crimes, by issuing such permits. Additionally, the money from permits could probably be put to good use by any and all states, AND perhaps a few innocent peoples lives would be saved over time, if more people carried concealed weapon.
    I say YES, YES and a thousand times YES to such permits.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  73. ceseeley

    The criminals are always going to have guns. Even if some state's concealed weapons permits aren't as valid as other states, the criminals are still going to be carry guns. Law abiding citizens need to be able to protect their families.

    Secondly, maybe, the Federal Government needs to step in and standardized concealed weapon permit laws in all the states.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  74. jack thomas

    As a retired 20 year city police officer I think this is a great idea a long time coming! Crime is up (whether the media wants to report it or not!) and cops can't be everywhere! Let lawful people be able to protect themselves and their families. These days you never know what might happen. Ever pull into one of these rest stops at 3 a.m.? I have. Had to stop a rape in progress. Things can only get worse with so many people out of work! Look at the increase in convenience store robberies lately. Ever walk in on one? I have. If criminals can carry their guns unlawfully everywhere putting everyone in potential danger, why cant the average law abiding citizen be able to? Active police officers can carry their guns over state lines, however, but once they are out of their jurisdiction they are a private citizen....so, where's the difference???

    July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  75. Michael Bennett

    It should be perfectly permissable for conceal carry individual to carry in every stste in the U.S.A.
    Liberals have always been against the second amendment and they have always and in every way tried to limit our use of firearms.
    The Brady Bill was a prime example. Also the assalt weapons bill.
    They ignore the laws on the books. Juveniles are not supposed to carry but they do. Wake up America and prosecute the guilty and not the law abiding citizen

    Thank You

    M Bennett
    Jax Fla.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  76. THOMAS TURNER

    TAKING WEAPONS ACROSS STATE LINES RAISES QUESTIONS. SUCH AS WILL YOU HAVE TO CHECK IN WITH THE NEAREST POLICE STATION.?
    WILL THE POLICE OF OTHER STATES HAVE STOP AND SEARCH POWERS? OR WILL THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR YOUR PERMIT?
    HOW WILL THIS AFFECT PLANE TRAVELING? AMTRAK, GREYHOUND? THATS TO MUCH FIREPOWER FLOATING ALL OVER.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  77. Ray R

    I believe that every citizen of the U.S. A. who has a Legal Concealed Weapons Permit, has the right to carry thier weapon in any state, just as long as the State in which they have the Concealed Weapons Permit has performed a background Check.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  78. ceseeley

    Heidi;

    If one can not protect their family with a gun anywhere in the United States, then it becomes a legal matter!

    corrected message

    July 22, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  79. Thomas Myers

    Very good idea. Gun permit holders undergo a very regid investigation before being issued a permit. The more legal gun carriers on the streets will make criminals think twice.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  80. Joel

    The DC Court of Appeals has ruled: “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large … and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.” - American Rifleman August 2009 Page 12 3rd column.

    Most states support this view on your protection.
    It is safer to handle you own safety the expect the police to do it.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  81. Adam

    I agree that law abiding citizens should have the right to carry anywhere. Does Mayor Bloomberg or one of his body guards carry concealed? If so, what gives them the right to carry and not every law abiding citizen to carry concealed.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  82. Sue Dean

    Yes, people with gun permits should be able to carry them across state-lines of any of the states in America. More time and efforts should be put towards disarming the criminals, not trying to pass laws that take away the rights of law-abiding citizens who live in a country that has the right to bear-arms. Our fore-fathers left England and formed America to have these freedoms. People who don't want them have a large sellection of other countries to move to who don't have these rights. One might also note that in England, where the citizens don't have this freedom, the murder rate is higher than ever. They are now considering legislation to take away their right to have knives on them. Murder isn't about our choice of weapon. Take them all away, and we'll still pick-up a club and kill each other. We should look to the real heart of the problem, and that's the heart of man... That's where we should put our effort to make changes.....

    July 22, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  83. Ralph

    It is long over due. A honest American citizen has a right to protect themselves, especially in places like NY, Chicago, and DC where the gun laws are the worst and so is the crime rate.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  84. Bob

    Heidi,
    My wife and I own legally purchased and own registered weapons and keep our weapons under safe control at all times. We have submitted to background checks by our State Police and have permits to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection. So well concealed are these weapons that nobody can tell we carry them not even friends with whom we are out with frequently.
    We could easily purchase weapons outside the law, not register them and carry them without anyone knowing we have them. Law abiding sane people who are good citizens are not the problem that we face in regard to violence and crime.
    If as a society we truly wish to improve and reduce violent crime we must start with better control of the weapons industry. Even more important we must focus on the promotion of better mental health, better education and educational opportunities while we work to build a prosperous economy. These are our best avenues to a better life with less violence and crime.
    Although it may feel good, the focus on law abiding weapon owners this effort is just a foolish avoidance of the true source of violence and crime problems; ignorance and poverty.
    Thank you,
    Bob from Indiana

    July 22, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  85. Terry Waggoner

    I have no problem with someone carrying a concealed weapon from another state. I'd more concerned with the driving habits of that individual. More people are killed by vehicles than are killed by legally licensed gun owners.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  86. James

    A lot of states already recognize at least some state's concealed weapons permits. So if the bill became law it wouldn't provide a cosmic change across the country except within states like New York, Maryland, and California. I welcome the right to carry in every state. I have my concealed weapons permit and don't like leaving my home unarmed...no matter what state I'm in.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  87. Jim Lefeber

    I urge my representatives to vote YES.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  88. Jim Lefeber

    I live in Oregon.
    I urge my representatives to vote YES.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:56 am |
  89. Robert St.Hilaire

    I think it is a good idea that provides equal rights for equal citizens BUT I do believe that licensing standards and checks should be more equal.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  90. shambhu

    Bad idea, rather people on uniform should only carry gun anywhere.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  91. sara

    I am tired of hearing the line guns don't kill people people kill people....can someone tell my four year old son that? His father 22 year old father was murdered by an individual who had no business carrying a gun. We need to regulate who is allowed to carry guns and furthermore we need to decrease the amount of guns that are circulated on the streets. People are ignorant to the realities of how much damage guns can and are doing to an entire generation. Maybe in rural areas it is not applicable, but in Detroit where my sons father was killed, it is a war zone, and someone needs to step up and protect these KIDS before they wipe eahother out with senseless violence. Guns do kill people because if these people did not have acces to these guns they would not be capable of killing eachother.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  92. William Nipper

    I am for it. I am a CHL holder and would like to be able to carry across state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  93. William Nipper

    For

    July 22, 2009 at 10:00 am |
  94. William J. Heldak

    RE: Right to carry across state lines if posessing a valid Permit to Carry? Yes I think a person should be allowed to carry across state lines so long as that person knows and abides by the "concealed carry" laws of that state. States have differing places classified as "firearm free" sites ie, schools.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  95. Steve Pawlowski

    The bill should be passed. The constitutional right to bear arms and self defense should not be limited by state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  96. James Dotson

    I think is a good thing.Those who argue the proposed law would make it easier for unbalanced people to carry guns anywhere they choose, including states with more stringent concealed gun laws need to know this. Example Texas requires classroom training on the
    Concealed Handgun License (CHL) laws, background checks,photographs,finger printing.The CHL class is taught by a State
    DPS certfied CHL instructor.Along with classroom training the individual must pass a firing range course.The CHL process is expensive and could cost from around $250.CHL holders are
    responsible citizens.I hope the Bill passes.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:04 am |
  97. Bruce Conner

    The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms but it doesn't mention "concealed" arms. States do have reciprocal concealed carry agreements, but they should also have the right to deny concealing weapons for the protection of their citizenry.

    States with large rural populations have more liberal laws on carrying personal weapons concealed and states with large urban populations have more strict controls - that's understandable and the states should retain the right to set their own standards on carrying concealed weapons.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:05 am |
  98. Barbara

    Ofcorse gun owners should be allowed to carry their firearms accross state lines. They have the right to protect themselves and their families no matter where they are.
    Strict gun laws only make law abiding citizens vulnerable to the criminals. Reality is if more people were educated and trained to use firearms, and carried them, there would be less crime.
    Criminals would be more hesitant of approaching good, decent, law abiding citizens if they believed they may have a gun stuck in their face.
    Gun laws do not affect criminals, they already show no respect for the law or others.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  99. Brian

    Sure!
    Why, I don't see any reason for proscribing carriage in the White House, the Capitol (both Houses!), ANY federal building, and elementary schools! An assault rifle with a big banana clip makes a nutritious addition to the lunch box.
    The only way to stop this amendment nonsense is to carry it to its logical absurdity, when the pandering congressmen are unwilling to have armed citizens in the same chamber while they, umm, "work".
    Newsmedia should be ready for gunfire at stockholder meetings this summer, solving thorny matters of "executive compensation".
    !Guns for all and everywhere!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:08 am |
  100. M Finizia

    Extending the range of the areas where CCWP holder are allowed to carry will only strengthen the safety of our communities. CCWP holders are not a risk to civilians, they are the silent heroes in most cases. But there is a direct statistical coloration to higher crime rates in communities that are not empowered to protect them self’s. This includes the FBI reports of increased crime/and violence during the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban during Clintons’ term in office. Looking at crime rate link to firearm ownership is the only way to make this legislation possible. Gun ownership is the only way to eliminate our plaguing society from school shootings, plane hijacking, terrorist attacks, rapes, robberies and loss of life

    July 22, 2009 at 10:10 am |
  101. Deborah Elliott

    I'm a long way from my last civics class, but I remember something called "states rights" being REALLY IMPORTANT. States cannot pass laws that supercede the laws of other states, period. I cannot believe this is happening. It strikes at the heart of the United States as it was originally formed–a republic of sovereign states (self-governing and not ruled by any other state). This scares the hell out of me.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:11 am |
  102. darren

    yes i think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere you wish. if it wasnt allowed the only people that would, would be the people your protecting yourself from. that includes the so called law enforcement we have nowdays.its my right to protect myself and my family in any state im in.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  103. C_Mike

    I presently live in Missouri; our state already honors all CCW permits from other states. The right to defend my family should not end at the state border! In order to obtain my Permit I had to take a multi-element training course that included weapon proficiency. Additionally I had to submit to a background check; insuring that I was not a felon or not otherwise disqualified from owning firearms. Fingerprints were taken and submitted to the FBI for inclusion in the FBI database. All this time and expense to exercise my 2A rights, a right guaranteed me under our constitution. Why should that right end when I leave my state.

    While I do not support any additional Federal Intrusion regarding my life, I find it unjustifiable that any state would deny me the right to defend my family while providing that same right to their citizens.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  104. Roger

    Mallory states "This clearly says that people in a well-regulated militia have the right to bear arms. Let’s face it- this was written for the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. This was not written for a time such as ours when bearing arms means Ak-47’s from car dealerships in Missouri and stories such as Seung-Hui Cho from Virginia Tech."

    I assume that since the Bill of rights was written back then, that you feel the same for the First amendment? After all this was not written for a time such as ours when we no have the internet, television, radio, and high speed printing presses.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  105. C Mangino

    The senate should pass a bill allowing recipricol carry. Most states if not all, do an extensive criminal background check and in states like Virginia, a judge issues the permit. Since people with permits are law abiding citizens who have been certified, it makes sense to allow these people to carry when on a trip. I personally as a business owner, would be allowed to travel with protection when carrying large sums of money. While many businesses can get by with a credit card, I can't as in I deal with real estate attending auctions requiring bids to be made in cash and or certified funds therefore, making me a potential target.
    Since the supreme court has determined the police have no duty to protect any one person, I must take precautions to protect myself should I cross the path of people with criminal intent. As a landlord, I collect rents and can be carrying thousands of dollars on my person at anytime. With out a weapon for protection, who will guarentee my safety? Certainly not the government!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  106. Barbara

    Rhoda Ubaechu: "Why have guns in the first place- for protection? What if nobody but the police were allowed to carry gun. Who would kill who with a gun, there wouldnt be virginia shooting b/c he had no gun. Ban individual from getting guns, and there would be no need for carrying consealed weapon b/c nobody would need it period."

    Sweet thought, but quite niave. In reaity Countires like Austrailia that banned fiearms all together, within the first year of the ban and destruction of all law abiding citizens firearms, the murder rate by firearm went up 300%.
    This is the problem with strict gun laws/bans.
    Again they have no effect on criminals.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  107. robert gillary

    liberals are destroying this our country.police should not be the only ones aloud to carry a legal firearm. this is what hitler did. no gun,noresistance.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  108. Richard Hermling

    Yes, you should be able to take concealed weapons across state lines if you have a concealed handgun permit in one state.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  109. Laura Berish

    Guns kill people. Why would anyone want to be a policeman? This is the NRA out of control. We have a safe country made less safe by people with guns.; hidden ones yet. The Founding Fathers would not recognize their amendment...talk about unintended consequences.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  110. JR

    If this bill is passed I would bet my paycheck that carjackings and other violent crimes would drop dramatically

    July 22, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  111. Jeannette Porter

    NO, people should NOT be able to carry guns across state lines.
    This totally flies in the face of state's rights regarding guns.

    NO NO NO NO NO

    July 22, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  112. brian

    Gun toting criminals run thru the streets of every state in this Nation. Why not let the responsible citizens of this country be able to carry legally?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  113. steve

    My 1st amendment rights still apply when I cross state lines,
    Why shouldn't my 2nd amendment rights be honored also?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  114. Kathy

    Concealed carry laws should be honored nationally.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  115. Bill Ring

    Sen Chuck Schumer claims that if this bill was passed a person could walk the streets of New York with a backpack full of handguns. How does he know that that isn't already happening, not just in New York but take a look at other cities like Chicago's handgun crimes. There it is illegal to even own a handgun!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  116. Ed in Connecticut

    Road Rage plus this false bravado will lead to many road side killings

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  117. wesley

    I love this Bill and i hope it passed. If criminals knew we could be packing they would think twice before they try something slick.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  118. Anne

    Hey, if we are doing away with States rights, lets do away with States government, state lines, etc. You guys are right!! Lets make the United States the United Country! That would certainly save some big bucks – maybe we could finally balance the budget! This is brilliant!!!!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  119. Joel

    Heidi
    U.S. Gun Deaths 1996
    State Deaths Population Deaths/1000 Democrat Republican Rank
    New York 1400 18143805 0.077 58.3% 30.0% 6

    Looks like the people of New York need to learn gun safety.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  120. John Lowry

    Since one of the major reasons for having a concealed weapon carry license is for protection during travel, I think it only makes sense to extend the privilege to visitors we have from other states and to us Texans when we travel to other states.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  121. Barry Blevin

    Our fore fathers gave us our second amendment rights in the Bill of Rights, why shouldn't we be able to keep this right anywhere in the country. If we have a legal concealed permit and have sustained the background checks required than Congress or States have no right to tell us that we are breaking the law by exercising our right to carry and protect ourselves and our family.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  122. Robert C Murray

    Yes!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  123. robert gillary

    almost all your violence is in the inner c ities. that is a fact politician keep lying about.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  124. Angela

    In these days where budgets are forcing local governments to cut policeman from the force and a strained economy is contributing to an increase in crime, law abiding citizens should not become subject to the lawless "many" that are out there. I am a single female and I am a gun owner. When I travel, I end up having to place my gun in the trunk of my car because there is little permit reciprocity between where my trip originates and my untimate destination.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  125. Marsha Hephner

    People should not be able to carry their guns to states that do not have concealed carry laws. That is one group forcing their beliefs on another. Besides it will open a precedent that will allow one states laws to be carried into another state. For instance–same sex couples married legally in one state would be legal in a state that forbids it. That would be fine with me, but most of the same people who would like to carry their guns into a state that forbids them are the same people who don't want to recognize same-sex couples from another state. They should think of the precedent they are trying to set.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  126. G. S. Richardson

    I am a retired US Army veteran, and have formal law-enforcement training and experience in the safe handling of guns, as well as the "shoot-don't shoot" rules, and as such I believe that all persons who are "lawfully licensed" to carry concealed weapons, should be able to do so including times of travel to other states, perhaps under an -Interstate Compact- law that's designed for that purpose.

    However, I do recommend that provisions be made for citizens to voluntarily participate in special paid or sponsored training designed to educate citizens on the law, and the proper use of firearms under various scenarios.

    The why some states allow their citizens to be licensed to carry "concealed weapons", revolves around the idea of being prepared to act "defensively" during "unexpected events" which may pose an immediate threat to the life or limb of that citizen and/or their family; or to help prevent an act that targets citizens for potential mass destruction.

    I am partial to the argument that says; "When guns (or gun rights) are outlawed (for law abiding citizens), then "Only Outlaws" will have guns". And I might add that Criminals will get the mind set that they have -free course- to Raid, Loot, Rob, Murder and Rape at will, without the citizen(s) having any recourse to protect themselves "Before the Police arrives"!!!

    Thank you.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  127. Laura Mettle

    I have to obey the traffic laws of each state when we cross state lines – not to mention the laws governing the purchase and use of alcohol and tobacco. Why not the laws governing carrying a weapon of any kind? Concealed weapon laws are meant to be observed by people who are in that state. Passing this law invalidates state laws. It's a bad idea.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  128. James

    As a retired peace officer with a concealed weapon permit, I am looking forward to the day when I can carry my firearm anywhere I travel in the U.S. to protect myself and my family.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  129. C. Maramaldi

    Our constitution takes into account the fact that regional differences and relative interests will always exist. Hence, the allowance for a degree of states rights is included in our founding document. Forcing densely populated states to permit individuals from other states to carry concealed weapons flies in the face of states' rights. Former states' rights advocates are now revealed to be the hypocrites they really are. What possible interest can Sen Thune have in allowing 14 year-olds from his state to carry a concealed weapon in Times Square. I say his has no real interest but politics and lobbists' money. He was not elected by my state to represent my state's interest. He should keep his nose out of issues that affect my state!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  130. Rick

    yes i think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere you wish,

    July 22, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  131. Shawn

    People are concerned that armed felons will obtain permits and carry nationwide. They don't understand that felons CANT GET a permit to begin with in ANY state.
    I'm all for this. My license works in all 50, so should my permit. It's called 'reciprocity'.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  132. Rob C

    I have no problem with this as long as there is standardized training and licensing requirements for all states.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  133. Rosalie

    Yes ,I do agree that one should be able to carry a concealed weapon across state lines. In 2007, there were 248,300 victims of rape or sexual assault. I am a woman and I travel for work. The ability to carry a concealed weapn would definitely make me feel a lot safer. We should never abolish the right to bear arms.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  134. Marie

    Absolutely not!!! We have enough problems in NY already with guns. This is our state and if someone can't part with their weapon while visiting us, just don't come! We certainly won't miss you!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  135. zetta

    Yes, I believe that we all, honest hardworking citizens of these United States should be allowed to carry guns. Not to be mean but I have lived in the ghetto almost all my life, and I can tell you that if a couple of crooks got shot, not dead just shot. It would make a lot of people a lot more honest hardworking citizens of these United States.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  136. Ronald

    I guess we are morphing back to the past...Wild, Wild West. When are we going to move forward into the future rather than morph back to the past? The NRA is an off spring of the Military Complex who has dominated our Legislative Agenda and has destroyed America. Wake up people.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  137. CJ

    Hi Heidi. On the issue of concealed weapons across state lines. Carrying concealed across state lines is not new. About 30 states already have reciprocal agreements in place that allow persons licensed in one state to carry in another. The federal ammendment would just solidify this across all States and remove the confusion that exists now that could land an innocent person in trouble if he drives through a state without reciprocal agreement. I am a retired police officer from Florida and would support the amendment. I dont think folks that carry with a permit are the problem. The criminals will always carry illegaly anywhere anyway.
    Take care,

    CJ
    From Miami, Florida

    July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  138. R. Johnson

    I am a former NYC resident for 25 years. I now live in Central Florida where I proudly carry my conceal weapon. In Florida we have reciprocity with thirty two other states. It is our Constitutional right to own guns. I agree with limiting felons to carry weapons. Licensed individuals like myself should be allowed to protect themselves and their families everywhere in these United States. This is America!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  139. Joel

    Heidi
    It is Federal Law that you have to be 21 to own a gun. Vermont may be less restrictive on this law. But as a CCW person it would be acceptable to have a Federal carry standard. Just like driving laws.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  140. Richard

    I am a photographer and travel throughout the U.S. by car and feel that if after being checked thoroughly by my home state including background checks and training I should be allowed to carry a weapon for protection in other states as well.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  141. Michael D

    No this law should not pass. What is the point of states making laws if you don't have to obey them if your from another state. This is opening a pandora's box for the overriding of any and every state law by another state. Should people who have medical pot be charged with possession if they travel in a state that does not allow it?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  142. Lance Motta

    Law makers are fighting for the "right" of individuals to carry guns from one state where it's legal to another where it's not? Think we could get those same law makers to pass a law that provides similar rights for same-sex (married) couples when in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  143. Shaun

    This is a fantastic idea to allow responseable gun oweners, who have taken the required training courses, passed federal background checks, and submitted their fingerprints to record; to carry in a responseable fasion across state lines as they would in their home state. Anyone who watches the news knows about situations where out of control citizens (without proper permits) go on shooting rampages. It would be nice if more private citizans had the ability to nip these actions in the bud.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  144. Dieter

    yes, guns in the hands of qualified and law-abiding citizens with a concealed weapon carrying permit should be able to be carried concealed in all states.

    the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created the 2. amendment.
    The states with the most liberal gun laws are the states with the least crimes.
    those states with the most restrictive gun laws (NY, DC and others) are the ones with the most crimes...
    something to ponder..
    Dieter

    July 22, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  145. Jacqueline H

    absolutely, if our state permit us to own a gun, and carry it. Well where I go it goes the point is to feel safe and protected ourseleves while away from home and visiting, we are just are just passing thru the concern should be of those holding in there states illegally. W hat the other state is saying is that the don't trust our system for deciding whether or not the person approved for the permit should be able to get a permit thats not their decsion to make. We don't live there so why should they govern what other states residents do or don't do when they have no control of their own!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  146. Sergeant Kevin Jensen

    This is a bad idea. I would love for every law abiding American citizen to be able to carry a firearm however they wish in any State without a permit, but Congress has no authority to make this decision for the States. This is a States rights issue, and the Congress needs to kill this amendment.

    SGT Kevin Jensen
    Utah State Researcher,
    http://www.opencarry.org

    July 22, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  147. Paul A.

    The criminal is going to carry a gun regardless of a permit or not. People who have gun permits are LEGALLY carrying a weapon. Background checks within the permit carriers home state have already been performed why not allow them to carry their guns accross state borders? Do you really think that someone who has a gun permit is going to knock off a liquor store any more than someone who is about to rob a liquor is going to get a permit before robbing it? Chipmunks have more common sense than some people running this country and we wonder why our country is in the state it is in. LEGALIZE the dang amendment. Quit systematically eroding our rights and give us some back.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  148. Zaid

    If you look at the statistics, you’ll find that almost 100% of law abiding concealed carry licensed Americans” never” commit gun crimes in their home states; so why would it be a problem if they can cross state lines and still be able to protect them-selves? Realistically, travelers are more exposed to crimes as criminals target out of state cars more often according to statistics.

    Keep in mind that a universal set of classes and tests requirements should be implemented, for example, in Indiana you just apply for a license, and without training and prior knowledge of the laws, you are able to get your license, while in neighboring Ohio, a 12-hour class is required to receive the license.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  149. jim

    Absolutely
    If they have been given the right under their state to carry concealed firearms, they should be allowed to travel to any state and do the same. This is a free America and the laws should apply equally. As long as they have the legal credentials. I can see where they may impose some restrictions as to carry a firearm into a bank etc. I personally own a firearm and use extreme caution as to where i carry it . I don't show i have a firearm as it does distress some people. I am totally law abiding and feel if these rights are given to me for self protection and protection to my family, crossing a state line should be no obstacle.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  150. Marlin Klinger

    If carrying concealed offers a level of protectiion to the individual then not permitting them to carry across a state line strips them of that protection. Individuals travelling therefore are most vunerable to criminal affrontery. Some procedure should be established so that persons with a carry permit from their own state could contact law enforcement in states in which they plan to travel and receive temporary permission to carry while in the host state. This would provide law enforcement in that state with a record for their evaluation in case an incident occurs.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  151. BOB COQUET

    IF AN UNTRAINED PERSON CAN JOIN THE ARMED SERVICES , RECIEVE TRAINING AND BE ALLOWED TO CARRY WEAPONS, THEN WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? WITH THE APPROPIATE TRAINING AND CONSEQUENCES FOR ILLEGAL ACTIONS WITH THE SAME , I DONT SEE THE PROBLEM. DID U KNOW CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS GOULD GET ARRESTED FOR CARRING CONCEALED WEAPONS WHEN TRAVELING? IF THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT CAN REGULATE AND ENFORCE DRIVER LICENSE REGULATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES THEN WHY NOT CONCEALED WEAPONS. IT IS ABOUT TIME WE GET REALISTIC ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE LAWS IN DIFFRENT STATES AND MAKE THEM UNIFORM. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW THE STATUTES IN EACH STATE WHEN TRAVELING WITH FIEARMS AND TOO EASILY RUN A FOUL OF. IF MAYOR BLOOMBURG HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS THEN HE SHOULD LOOK INTO WHOM HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ISSUED PERMITS TO .......

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  152. Annette

    What is the use of a gun? First of all, I think a gun should be licensed in every state. For you to cross state lines that don't have the same gun rules is going to cause problems. If the role is to increase crime rate go right ahead.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  153. Charles Maricle

    Most states that have concealed handgun licenses have reciprocal agreements with other states. For example, Texas has such an agreement with 25+ states (the Texas CHL is recognized and valid in those states and vice versa). Given that the number of handgun crimes caused by CHL holders is near nil, the nay sayers worries have been disproven for over a decade now. After all, shouldn't a CHL holder enjoy the same rights as a criminal who already can carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states???

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  154. Linda

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So no it's not a good idea to either extend our gun laws, they are too liberal now. If you don"t believe this try living in an area that allows deer hunting & see how polite & gun savvy the snipers are.

    It should be more, much more, difficult to obtain & carry a gun than drive a car. What are those that want to carry concealed weapons afraid of, a few questions to check their mental ability or legal status? The laws should be more severe as to breaking any gun laws.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  155. KEITH KLEMME

    I say yes for the following reasons:
    Criminals could care less about gun laws and will always find a way to rob and kill their victims. (bombs,baseball bats etc.)

    Our politicians aren't afraid because they have body guards who carry weapons and go everywhere with them, Just like the medical they get for free is better than any the rest of us get, do you think they'll stand in line with Obama's new system? Which will bankrupt American.

    Our politicians are doing nothing to stop the Gangs in this country that are taking over our cities and small towns.

    I see any laws on Gun Control an infringement of my Constitution Rights as a law abiding citizen.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  156. Bob Rice

    I have friends (one a businessman, One a medical doctor) who live in Pa. a short distance from the NY border. Both are handgun permit holders in their home states who cannot bring their guns into NY to work. They are left without their licensed means of self-defense while working in NY. Neither can they take their guns as far as the NY border, since they have no place to leave them before crossing into NY.
    The real clincher is that I and many other NY residents have been granted Pa. handgun permits per a reciprocal agreement with Pa. to honor our NY. permits.
    So what's the difference? Guys like Chuck Schumer.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  157. Charlie

    Yes and Yes and be sure to carry your valid concealed handgun permit with you at all times.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  158. Michael Velasco Sr

    What most people don't realize is that not a blanket permit to carry an unlimited number of firearms.
    To obtain a concealed carry permit requires mandatory classroom hours and proof of the ability to properly handle and use a firearm.
    It is the people who carry without a concealed carry permit or the people who are not legally permitted to have a firearm that make it seem like that law bidding citizens with concealed carry permits are irresponsible.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  159. Joe Ceresky

    So, if gun licensing is a state's rights issue then it seems clear to me that a state has the right to determine who should be allowed to carry a gun and under what cercimstances. If citizens of states like New York cannot carry a concealed weapon in their own state, why should outsiders? Otherwise this whole thing becomes a federal issue and national gun control laws are on the table.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  160. Sandy Arbour

    Very bad idea! Many of the senators in favor of this bill are against health reform based on the possible cost for it. What will be the cost in lives, law enforcement, emergency rooms, national security and safety to our citizens? The NRA has a shotgun pointed to our lawmakers. We need to get the money out of our elections.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  161. Kenneth R Champion

    States rights over gun control should be preserved. Some "more rural" States that feel more gun ownership is OK probably has a lot of rural hunting areas for game. Other "more metropolitan" large City prone States like New York does not favor more liberal gun actions such as concealed weapons for 16 year olds because of the lack of maturity in handling guns and using good judgement and the increased contact of people in large population areas and any ethnic tensions. Gangs tend to proliferate in large City areas.

    KENNETH R CHAMPION
    Citrus Heights, CA

    July 22, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  162. s samuelson

    criminals will carry weapons without permits regardless of any law you pass or any laws that exist.
    the law would only stop honest, law abiding citizens the opportunity to protect and
    defend themselfs.
    the government should uphold my second amendment right,
    not continually try to infringe upon it.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  163. aaron

    i dont see an issue here, its not the people with the permit that should be feared or worried about, it is the lawbreakers that have ill intentions. and the law wont stop those individuals from doing this anyway.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  164. George H. Foster

    This amendment should be passed. I have a CCW from Florida which is good in 33 other states. There are 575,000 of us here. My brother lives in Pennsylvania, and there over 600,000 people have these permits. Both of us find it madding to have to unload and store our weapons when we cross through Maryland (in some cases only 13 miles), since Maryland does not have receprocity with anybody.

    Mayor Bloomberg is a hypocrite. In New York City, roughly 2900 people have the same permit that I have. If you are rich or famous or connected you get one, but someone like me can not even get a non-resident permit, or have reciprocity. Regarding Senator Schumer, it has been reported that he has one of the 2900 permits – so I guess he is one of the Chosen...

    I am responsible for my personal security, and no police force can either be legally or morally responsible for protecting me. The courts say they can not be held responsible, and as good as the police are, and how hard they try, they can not be at every crime scene to stop the crime before it happens.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  165. CJ

    Hi again Heidi. Here's some follow-up and verification for what I said before about concealed weapons across state lines going on since 1999. This is the relevant info on the website for Florida Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services Division of Licensing, which shows the list of states that have agreements with Florida.

    and the link:

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

    Concealed Carry Reciprocity
    PLEASE NOTE: The reciprocity information on this page is ALWAYS CURRENT. The Division of Licensing constantly monitors changing gun laws in other states and attempts to negotiate agreements as the laws in those states allow.

    This list was last updated on July 1, 2009, when the State of Nevada was removed from the reciprocity list. Authorities in Nevada notified the Division of Licensing that as of that date, Nevada would no longer honor Florida concealed weapon licenses. Therefore, in accordance with the reciprocity provision set forth in section 790.015, Florida Statutes, Florida could no longer honor concealed weapon licenses issued by the State of Nevada.

    With the addition of Section 790.015, Florida Statutes, in 1999, Florida's weapons and firearms law was amended to allow the Division of Licensing to enter into agreements with other states on the issue of carrying concealed weapons. To date the Division has established such agreements with the states listed below. In accordance with the terms of these pacts, each of these states has extended the privilege of concealed carry to holders of Florida Concealed Weapon/Firearm Licenses. The State of Florida has, in turn, extended that same privilege to the licensees of these states.

    It is important for license holders to understand that when they are traveling in or through another state they are subject to the firearm laws of that state. We have provided links to the state laws or to the licensing authorities' Web page of each of our reciprocity states so that licensees can do the necessary planning and research when preparing to travel.

    FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES
    Alabama (1,3,5)
    Alaska (1)
    Arizona (6)
    Arkansas (1)
    Colorado (1,4)
    Delaware
    Georgia (1)
    Idaho (3,6)
    Indiana (1,3,6)
    Kansas (1)
    Kentucky
    Louisiana (1)
    Michigan (1,4)
    Mississippi (1)
    Missouri
    Montana (3)
    New Hampshire (1,3,4,6)
    New Mexico (1)
    North Carolina (1)
    North Dakota (3,6)
    Ohio (1)
    Oklahoma (1)
    Pennsylvania (1,6)
    South Carolina (1,4,6)
    South Dakota (1,3)
    Tennessee (1,6)
    Texas (1,3,6)
    Utah (1,6)
    Vermont (2)
    Virginia (1,6)
    West Virginia (1,4)
    Wyoming (1,3)

    Take Care,

    CJI

    July 22, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  166. Armin McGiLL

    I currently reside in Charleston, SC and violence ranks among the top states in the nation. Having a concelled wepon license is for protection against people that may harm you. My opinion is that this ammendment will ensure proper safety to individuals while visiting other states. Keep in mind that in order to receive a concelled weapon license there are many qualifications. So yes I believe that granting this ammendment is a wonderful idea.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  167. Tom - Phoenix AZ

    Heidi,
    When the gov't extends to its citizens the right to carry in their pocket the power of life or death over others, the gov't needs to require extraordinary accountability on the part of those who exercise that right. Commission of a felony with a gun should require a mandatory 25 year prison sentence, no exceptions. Murder with a gun should require life in prison, no exceptions.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  168. E Lobdell

    I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon for protection. If I travel to a different state, I want the right to carry my protection with me. Many times I have been on the road traveling, stopping in rest areas, or getting into a undesirable location and I have been relieved to know I have some form of protection. How many times do you hear of people being attacked, carjacked, or killed in these situations?

    Recently, I had to walk across the UAB college campus after dark downtown Birmingham Alabama. I have lived on the west coast and been all over LA after dark, shopped in Tiajuana and Puerto Vallarta Mexico after dark, and shopped in Athens Greece after dark; I have never been as scared in any of these locations as I was in Birmingham Alabama.
    We live in a world of extremely mean people who want to harm others. Our government/state officials need to make better decisions on who gets a gun permit, stiffer penalties for those who abuse the permit or carry illegally, and recognize that not everyone is a criminal and deserve the right to bear arms.
    One of the Senators stated he did not want someone carrying a backpack of guns in Central Park. I don't want a backpack full, just one. If someone is educated on proper gun handling and the laws on concealed weapons, then it won't be the permit owners doing illegal actions. They need to work harder on the people who carry illegally and commit crimes! Guns don't kill, people with uneducated bad attitudes do!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  169. Allen

    The expansion of concealed carry rights is appropriate. You can drive with a license from any state in any state, the same should apply to other licenses. The arguements that this expansion will increase crime are simply nonsense. There isn't a single time where the expansion of gun rights lead to more crime. In fact, it is just the opposite. The more you restrict guns, the greater the gun crime. Take a look at Great Britain who has arguably the strictest gun laws in the world. The fastest growing crime in Great Britain is gun crime and all voilent crimes are on the rise. In fact, most of Europe has far higher rates of crime, specifically violent crime, than the United States even though they have far tougher gun laws.

    The arguements by gun control advocates are non-sense and have no basis in reality. The truth is more people with legal guns equals lower crime, that is what the statistics show in the US and around the world.

    Here are some statistics to think about; car accidents kill between 35,000 and 45,000 people each year, medical mistakes accidents take 780,000 lives each year, about 20,000 people each year kill themselves with persciption drugs. As for Guns, approximately 30,000 die from guns, 12,000 of which are suicides. That means guns, which are design to kill, have a lower impact on society than either cars or modern medicine. People should focus on reality and the numbers and not the nonsense rederick.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  170. truthseeker

    This is madness. If it were for the NRA, americans would own several guns, preferable semi-automatics that they can carry into bars, parks and other public places. Why stop at that and let them also own and carry grenades and rocket launchers in schools and on planes?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  171. Al Hawthorne

    As long as the individual qualification for and issuance of concealed carry permits requires a uniform and proper standard of training in weapons safety in each state, reciprocity for permit holders makes sense. It also bodes well for the further reduction of violent crimes where right-to-carry already exists. The bill has much merit.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  172. R. E. Bryant

    Good day,

    More Guns. More Crime

    Innocent people always suffer at the hand of those who carry guns.

    Heidi, we hear stories of things happening such as mistaken identity and "accidentental shootings" which take the lives of the innocent.

    In response to taking hand guns across state lines, I would say, "NO."

    Taking licensed stun-guns across state lines, I would say, "Yes." As this would at least give someone a chance to live, especially if they are not the intended target.

    One fatal shot to the human body from a hand-gun, is just that, a fatal shot, resulting in ones death.

    Licensed STUN-Guns across State Lines – YES

    Licensed Hand-Guns across State Lines – NO

    R. E. Bryant
    New York

    July 22, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  173. Daniel Earley

    I'm 79, itis about time the world is growing up. The gun is mine. It is no danger for a person to carry a gun. Drinking is possible,

    July 22, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  174. Edee

    Heidi, I feel that guns are the problem today with gang violence and with those who have an uncontrollable behavior, but; if you feel you need a gun to protect your family and home, then; by all means do so.
    As far as traveling with a gun in other state line, they should abide by that states rules and regulations,but what reason would you need one to go in another state unless you are moving there.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:45 am |
  175. Chad Kastner

    I'm in Wisconsin and we don't allow concealed carry at all. Guess what? There isn't a bunch of criminals shooting each other. We definitely shouldn't allow concealled carry across state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:45 am |
  176. James Forney

    It's an idiotic idea that only an idiot like John Thune could love. As a former police officer and public safety director of 35 years, I can tell you that such a law would only serve to increase an already violence prone society. The young gun-weilding criminals would not be frightened at the prospect of confronting a citizen with a gun, in fact many would consider it a challenge.
    Police carry guns and are well trained, yet these urban crimianl think nothing of confronting an officer. An armed citizen would be inviting confrontation not only with a potential criminal but with the police as well. People become emboldened when in possession of fire arms whether they know how to use them or not. The most likely outcome, should this bill pass, is many more accidental shootings from errant shots by poorly trained people. John Thune could very well find himself the victim of an errant shot, fired by the very person he enabled to carry a gun on the public street. Just how confortable would you be, sitting in a DC restaurant with your family knowing that many of the other patrons are armed to the teeth with such fire power.

    John Thune is an idiot, as are the many senators who believe as he does. GOD Help America!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:45 am |
  177. Mike W

    Did I feel safe this last weekend walking the streets of Manhattan? When on a corner, two very over weight lady police officers stood, one on a cell phone laughing ,giggling. Obviously NOT talking police business. The other officer not paying attention to what was going on. Just because they were carrying a handgun didn't make me feel safe. I'm a law abiding citizen who has a carry permit for my county and state (not NYC) I should be able to carry my handgun concealed any where any time.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:46 am |
  178. Mark

    I beleive the second amendment covers all the states. The first amendment and every other amendment is guaranteed for every citizen across the U.S.. Only the second amendment is a pick and choose. If we went along that way of thinking slavery would still be legal in the southern states.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  179. joe from Arizona

    This should be approved for the law abiding citizens as non abiding guys are going to do it anyway..............

    July 22, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  180. Terry

    Of course someone who is issued a valid concealed weapon permit should be allowed to "carry" across state lines! It's just another attempt at gun control - translated, that means that ONLY CRIMINALS (those who ignore any law) will have guns.

    The process in Florida is quite thorough and I'm sure many of the states have similar checks on who gets a concealed weapons permit.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  181. Rosalie

    I am a woman and I travel for my job. Yes, I do believe that concealed weapons should be allowed across state lines. In 2007, there were over 240,000 rapes and or sexual assualts "reported" that occurred. The ability to carry a concealed weapon across state lines would definitely make me feel safer. We should never abolish the "right to bear arms"

    July 22, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  182. Jim Washington

    IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT GUN RIGHTS ARE THOSE WHO LIVE IN LOW CRIME AREAS! WHY? I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEALED WEAPONS BILL THAT THE SENATE IS TO VOTE ON TODAY!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  183. Linda Porter

    I am for caryying a concealed weapon across state lines. I have my own concealed weapon permit and have traveled cross country alone before. The one safe assurance I had was that I could protect myself on the road alone. I did look up state laws before I traveled and many states already accept other states concealed weapons permits.

    Linda- Odell NE

    July 22, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  184. Ron

    Criminals who intend you and society harm are not bound by the laws of this land. They are already carrying their firearms into illegal areas. It's time law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  185. Andrew

    The people that have the gun permits are not the ones doing the crimes. We are just trying to protect ourselves. You guys keep showing that kid that killed everyone, yes he bought a gun but did he have a permit? If someone wants to commit murder, they can do it with anything. Stoping the gun permit holders from carring there guns, my stop them but it wont stop the bad guys!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  186. Betty in southeast Arkansas

    Yes, I have a valid concealed carry license. I support being able to carry my gun across state lines. It is the criminals (who function outside the law) who are the problem not citizens who have a concealed carry license. I've had a background check, finger printed, undergone training in appropriate use of my gun and safe practices when confronted in a life threatening condition.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  187. Thom Hawkins

    I agree that concealed weapons should be permited across State lines for the states that permit concealed weapons. These are the United States of America

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  188. John D. heath

    I am retired military, 68 years old, too old to fight, and too fat to run. I have a concealed weapon permit in Texas. I know that weapons in the hands of bad guys don’t see state borders. I respect state borders but I know others don’t and none of the bad guys don’t.
    I am very much in favor of people with concealed weapon permit holders carrying their weapon across state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  189. Brian

    Legal concealed carry permit holders go through extensive background checks, and training in order to receive their permits in most states. This law is much needed as it may help cut down on the amount of criminal activity those who target the unarmed set out to do.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  190. George Tsiolis

    What is wrong with this country? Are we now living in the Wild West or something? As an Australian living in this wonderful country, I cannot believe this country's mad obsession with guns! Its the only thing us Aussies, and often other foreign-born citizens we know, don't like about this country. I, for one, do NOT like the idea that a 16 year old kid can carry a gun underneath their jacket in the middle of New York City just because they've been issued a license in the midwest. This is pure madness. I don't trust most 16 year olds behind the wheel of a car...let alone carrying another instrument designed to maim and kill! This obsession with guns creates a heightened sense of tension...who is carrying one, who will use one unnecessarily? Craziness...sheer craziness!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  191. jaw312

    Yes,

    As long as the right and license was obtained legally. Our right to bear arms is a federal right. Period.

    If laws and law enforcement were truly effective protections against my immediate harm, then I would not feel the need to carry a gun. Sadly, this is not the case in this crazy world we live in today.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  192. Aaron from Chicago

    Well Miss. Heidi

    I dont think carrying guns would be wise considering all of the violence happening in America. Gun violence, war, gang wars and all the rest, I dont think that citizens should have guns because of crime rates.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  193. Renee

    This is not the wild, wild west. Someone commented, a person with a permit could help stop crime. The moment someone else is shot b/c the police mis-identified a criminal from a permit carrier the courts will become over crowed.
    I am more concern that Washington is thinking of this. Will this issue bring jobs, help with healthcare? Washington can you PLEASE stay on task.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  194. Justin Pyle

    Let's be realistic here folks, Law Enforcement has the right to arrest you in their state for violating their state laws if you were to illegally use your weapon. Why restrict a law abiding citizen the right to protect themselves and their families. Criminals are perfectly content violating the laws by illegally carrying firearms over state lines.

    We seem to be forgetting that in order to get a concealed weapons permit you must first be a "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN". Here's an idea how about we focus on enforcing laws that prosecute CRIMINALS, instead of limiting the rights of free citizens.

    With Law Enforcement budget cuts, police departments are having to cut back on patrols and reduce their footprint in the community. The recession is forcing the crime rate to all time highs. Help hard working Americans defend themselves and their families and friends.

    "Better to be judged by a panel of 12 strangers, then be put in the ground by a group of 6 friends"

    July 22, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  195. Velva Vine

    I live in NYS and do not think those with concealed weapons should be able to carry them across state lines. Defeat this amendment.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  196. Brian

    Just a little common sense here. Criminals carry their weapons where they please without concern of state borders. I would hope as someone who has a permit, I would be able to do the same! I travel with my work, many times to what I/law enforcement consider dangerous areas. These places are not in my permit state, would it not make sense for me to be able to have my protection with me? A subject like armed citizens, I believe should have both national and local regulation, where national should consider the bigger picture such as transport/ownership and local more in use.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  197. Dean Cade

    Does crime stop when one crosses a state line?
    Interesting that certain elected senators and mayors believe, that they have the right to disregard the Constitution.
    Amendments are not open for local interpretation as to whether or not the law will be implemented or not...
    As an asside, homosexual unions are as yet not addressed in Constitutional law.
    I have absolutely no problem with an individual chosing to not protect themselves or loved ones, they just do not get, to make that decision, for me!
    Have you checked on how many states do honor the carry permits of other states.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  198. Sid Wynder

    Heidi,
    That Steve Perries the republican stereo typical new york city jerk!
    Please get some more real common sense compassionate undegreed people on your broadcast. These greedy degreed republican right wings are killing me!!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  199. susan blake

    This concept is sickening...what are these men thinking? The Constitution is being so blown out of proportion by private interest groups that is truly shameful. Hopefully these people don't have a loved one that will run into one of these concealed guns...by a 16 year old? We all know how much restraint and good judgement a hormonal 16 year old boy has...especially when provoked.

    I think Steve Perry should take his good sense on the road and speak to some of these hardheads. I am a white, suburban mother of 2, and this is a man I can stand behind. Keep up the good work Mr. Perry, you are an amazing role model!

    Thanks Heidi!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  200. A. L. Shake

    Yes I agree.

    CCP holders have passed their own state security and safety checks and given this license.

    The F.B.I. has found that virtually no lawless gun attacks are committed by CCP license holders.

    In states with CCP rights, the crime rate has gone down because crooks don't want to be shot. They prey on those they think are defenseless.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  201. Billy Husher

    1. The Constitution only guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not specify as to which arms nor in what way. Thus thus states are granted the right to give specifics as long as it does not violate the Constitution or Federal laws within the confines of their states while the Federal government has jurisdiction among interstate travel.
    2. It is highly problematic that a state that does not have legal conceal and carry laws to be required to recognize another state's laws. States are more than able to make reciprocity agreements among themselves. This should not be a Federal issue that violates a state's right to choose policy in their state.
    3. If you want to argue slippery slope, should they be required to recognize gay marriage, common law marriage, background checks and other state-controlled processes?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  202. Jacobi, UK

    Heidi,
    This is the most ridiculous and stupid law to enact. So, we do not have any important thing our Senators should bre discussing. Don't we have enough crimes, violence, rapes, murder within states? Allowing gun to be carried interstate just to please the NRA and Senators are voting for this? Don't State have enough crimes committed with guns? The Republican's lunatics arm-twisting the whole country to allow guns, GUNSs that kill, to be carried inter-state? What else remain – allow guns to be concealed and carried inter-continental/ Why is Maerica killing itself. Folks, when it starts to happen, remember this Senate vote to allow guns to be carried inter-state?

    Good Luck, America!

    July 22, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  203. patrick molnar

    All guns should be banned in our nation, except for police and military. Guns make killing each other too easy. We must revisit the second ammendment. We are no longer a wild west nation, and are "protecting our families" from each other. Hunters etc. can rent guns.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  204. james wright

    Yes, the constitution protect our right to do so. Why should only judges, prosecutors and the well connected be allowed to carry and ordinary law abiding citizens be denied their right?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  205. Mike

    Im in the army and currently station in Northa Carolina. I have my concealed carry permit here and recently went home on leave to Vermont (my home of record). it was very difficult to carry my hand gun across state lines on the drive up since NC only has reciprocity in two of the states on the way up. i called each state's police to ask about it and none were willing to work with me. so i was not able to have my legal handgun for my protection when stopping at rest areas...i think a nantional reciprocity ammendment would be great!! Seeing as no one who goes through the process of carry concealed is a risk to the general population.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  206. Portmore

    If the Constitution is a national right, and gun rights is a part of the Constitution, then we should have the same gun rights for everyone (nationally)

    July 22, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  207. David

    Good Morning Heidi, wonderful to see you. What two states don't allow concealed weapons? To answer the question, I guess it's ok, as long as the person with the permit is in full compliance with the laws of both states.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:57 am |
  208. Rick Sargent

    You have neglected to mention that states that currently allow concealed carry have reciprocity with many other states, just not all of them. People with concealed carry permits have gone through background checks and training before receiving their permits.
    Many tend to say that just because someone with a carry permit is OK in his home state, that he or she is immediately going to become a threat as soon as he or she drives across a state line. Where is the logic in this?
    I believe it was Mayor Bloomberg who said on the news this morning that now someone could be walking through a part with a backpack full of guns. This is not what someone with a concealed permit would do. This is the action of someone without a permit who is bent on doing some harm. Wouldn't you prefer that there were armed citizens around to protect themselves and others in this type of situation? It certainly would make this type of coward more reluctant to try something like this.
    Some say we should rely on police officers to protect us. How do they know when we will need help. They only show up after the violence in almost all cases. It has also been ruled by the courts that law officers have no legal obligation to protect us citizens. We need to be prepared to protect ourselves and our families.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  209. glenn williams

    MAYBE THERE SOULD BE A SURVEY PERFORMED,HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED FROM A PERSON THAT HAS A GUN PERMIT.I THINK IF I WAS A ROBBER LOOKING FOR A DEFENSELESS PERSON TO ROB OR SOMEONE TO TO RAPE,I WOULD THINK TWICE IF I KNOW THAT HE OR SHE MIGHT BE CARRYING A GUN.I MIGHT EVEN THINK ABOUT CHANGING MY CAREER.IF YOU HAVE A PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPON AND WANT TO TRAVEL TO ANOTHER STATE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO.FOR SURE IF YOUR GOING TO NEW YORK.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  210. james

    what the heck!?!?!?!

    all im saying on this is

    hummm
    Second Amendment

    July 22, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  211. John S.

    This is a no brainer folks. I live in PA, a state that recognizes concealed carry as well as open carry. I go no where without my 45 ( in PA)! The constitution gives me the right to protect myself and my family and I intend to utilize this right. Certain political figures crack me up when they say things like they do not want people walking through Central Park with backpacks filled with guns....gimme a break! Do you think that just because a law abiding citizen can cross state line with his firearm that this same law will pour more guns on the street???????????? C'mon, those guns are there now and restricted law abiding folks from carrying their guns is not going to stop this or aid to it. This legislation should be passed ASAP.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:59 am |
  212. Randy

    With great power comes great responsibility. Why don't we make a law that says if your gun kills or maims someone, you are financially responsible for that. We have the technology to have all guns "fingerprinted" but gun owners want the right but not the responsibility. The NRA has too many senators and congresspeople in their pockets. Why don't we ask policemen their take on the number of guns on the streets?

    July 22, 2009 at 11:00 am |
  213. Charles Murphy

    Miss Heidi,
    I am a 30-year active duty serviceman who can be trusted to defend our country and her interests but cannot be trusted to carry my handgun legally across state-lines with a valid CCW permit. In fact, to try and stay legal, I have had to acquire permits from three different states (no easy task with varying degrees of rules from County Sheriffs). I have an inordinate amount of training, finger printed in multiple data bases in the US but cannot legally cross multiple state-lines. “Totally unsat”. My diver’s license seems to work? Come on elected officials, get it together, it is my 2nd amendment right!

    R,
    Chuck
    Fallon, NV

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  214. Brendon N.

    This amendment is something that should have been passed a long time ago, but some question whether or not this will increase the 'crime' rates in areas. My response to that is a big NO! The people that are carrying concealed LEGALLY should be allowed to carry across state lines without question. Why? Because these are the people that have gone through the background checks, who are responsible gun owners, and most of all, understand the dangers that they and their families could be faced with.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  215. Adam

    Heidi,
    In response to other viewers concerns about illegal guns and activities.
    New York ,and other cities like it, already have huge problems with illegal activities like illegal drugs, guns, prostitution, and gambling. Yet despite being legislated as being illegal the problems still exist and the government has been unsuccessful in eradicating these problems.
    This bill is about protecting the rights of law abiding citizens.

    You cannot legislate a criminal no matter how hard you try!

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  216. AmyC

    By all means, pass the bill. However, when these guns carried across state lines inevitably injures or kills innocent folks due to the potential fear or bravado of the carrier, what then? Let the blame-storming begin.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  217. Roger

    Heidi,

    Yes, law abiding citizens should be able to carry weapons across state lines. I live in Virginia and have a concealed weapons permit. I travel to Pennsylvania every other weekend due to visitation with my son. Pennsylvania honors Virginia permits, I can carry concealed in both states. To get to Pennsylvania, I have to travel through Maryland for a brief period. Maryland does not honor my Virginia Permit. Therefore I don't get to carry at all.
    It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant politicians can be. Passing of this amendment would not allow for a 16 year old from Vermont to carry a gun in a back pack on the streets of New York or in Central Park as suggested by Sen. Chuck Schumer. This is because it is illegal for a 16 year old to own or possess a firearm in the state of New York.
    In my opinion, the Anti-Gun advocates are attempting to instill fear when it is not necessary. They would have America believe the passage of this amendment is going to create havoc on our streets. They will not admit (at least publicly) that the amendment states that permit holders that carry to another state must follow all laws regarding concealed weapons of the state they are visiting.

    Thanks,

    Roger

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  218. gem

    We must enpower the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. To disarm the law abiding citizens arms the criminals. Take an automobile trip from NY to Florida and you will feel how helpless you are in the middle of nowhere. That helplessness carries over to everywhere. The government can't guarantee your safety nor can the police be everywhere. Please wake up america, the criminals in states where there are gun restrictions are in control.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  219. echoaux

    A 1968 law forbids BUYING a hand gun in any state other than your own and a long gun only in a state that attaches to your state!!!! A truck driver can not even carry a ball bat or stun gun in his truck!!! I have been robbed by a phony cop out in the middle of nowhere and have had guns pulled on me while traveling for no other reason but robbery. One last thing while you sit comfortable in your golf course prison and a person wants what you have (hey you look rich there) who's really there to help – cops they are far off, the guy carrying the gun will face jail time NO MATTER WHAT!!! Do you really think I will pull my gun to help you because I know I am going to jail if I do!!!! NO LAW SAYS I HAVE TO!!!! People in New York City have no clue of travel out side of their place most do not even have a drivers licence!

    July 22, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  220. Carrie E in Indiana

    Listen, I am for people who are responsible enough to have guns for hunting and for police and military. I live in a state where I know the laws, and I am used to those laws. I do not want someone coming in from out of state breaking our laws. I know when I visit my brother in Minnesota I can not bring and shoot off fireworks but they are legal here. The same should be true for any other law. Driving on interstates accross the nations is not a valid comparison to using a gun in different states. You are trying to compare apples with oranges. Most people need to drive and can with safety it is not a thing that is meant for killing (although sometimes that happens). Guns are meant for one purpose to scare, to threaten and to kill. I don't like them, I don't want them around me although I know they are necessary in some situations. I want them kept out of my way, that is for sure.

    One Indiana Hoosier and Colts Fan!

    Take Care and thanks Heidi! This is my very first blog EVER!

    July 22, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  221. Duane Jacobs

    What are the facts?

    Everytime there is a debate about concealed carry. I hear people that
    are against concealed carry saying there will be gun fights on every street and around every corner. I can't remember seeing a single article in the newspaper or hearing anything on CNN about a person with a CCW permit breaking the law.

    Duane
    CCW – Ohio

    July 22, 2009 at 11:03 am |
  222. Paul Van Ausdall

    People should be allowed to have a concealed carry permit in America, to defend themselves, if necessary. The concealed carry permit should be recognized in all states, just like our license plates on our cars and our driver's licenses.
    A standardized test should be given to all concealed carry permit holders.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  223. Mark

    I have read the term,
    ' This is not the wild west".
    Have any of you senn the statistics of nearly 16-18 thousand people MURDERED in this country every year????
    This is the reality we live in.
    I'm glad my state of Ohio gives me the right to protect myself and family.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:06 am |
  224. Mike

    and one more comment for the brilliant people saying we have enough crimes committed by guns. those crimea are committed by criminals with unregistered throw away guns...those will still happen regardless of this ammendment. this ammendment allows the law abidding citizens to protect themselves from those types of crimes....

    July 22, 2009 at 11:06 am |
  225. Martin F. Sullivan Sr.

    I'm in favor of being able to carry a concealed weapons across the United States. One thing about weapons, they are no different than an automobile, it takes a human being to make it work.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:09 am |
  226. Joel

    Heidi
    Be aware that the DC Court of Appeals ruled: "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large ... and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

    Look at you local police cars, do they have the "protect and serve" words on the car.

    This is why I practice CCW. It is better to be safe then sorry.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:09 am |
  227. Michael Luppino

    As a avid gun enthusiast, I'm opposed to cross state carry permission. This gives greater opportunity for accidents, theft of firearms, as well as, weakening and confusing individual state gun laws. What state has jurisdiction if accidents etc. occur? There may be a place for temporary permitting if cause/need could be established. Otherwise only law enforcement personnel should be carrying their firearms across state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:14 am |
  228. Beatrice

    I wasn't born in the US. I don't understand why people want to own guns. This is one of those "culture chocs" I go through living in the US.
    I never had any crime stories in my life before I arrived in the states. I remember a deli close to my job where I used to go sometimes for lunch. A young girl often made a sandwich for me. One morning she wasn't there and everybody was distraught in the restaurant... the girl had been shot the day before with her boyfriend by her father. (she was caught in a dispute between her parents). A bullet in the head... I didn't know her but I never forgot her...and I still thank her for the great sandwiches she used to make me.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  229. Frank

    Heidi,
    I am a life-long Democrat and a college professor. I also have a Concealed Weapons License. I think the issue before the Senate is very important and necessary and should be passed.
    Recently returning from the Northeast to my home state in the Southwest, I carefully planned my route so that I would only pass through states that honored my own state’s concealed carry license. But despite my best efforts, I ended up crossing into Illinois, which does not allow any concealed carry. For about two miles and five very scary minutes I was illegal and subject to a felony charge.
    We need some uniformity in our laws. I do not fear going to Times Square knowing that law-abiding citizens from any of the 50 states may be carrying weapons. What I fear is going to Times Square knowing that only criminals have weapons.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:20 am |
  230. Bruce Mitchell

    YES. if u have a CPL u should be allowed to carry your gun across state line. Gun's don't kill people. criminals with gun's kill people. make the law's harder on people that use gun's to comment crime's. to day outside detroit two couples attacked by one man with a knife he killed two men an two women critical. is the gov going to take all the knife's also.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  231. Martin

    I fully support the legal ability to carry firearms, if licensed by a given state to do so. I also support establishing national standards, such as a clean criminal record, sound mental health and demonstration of safety awareness. If and when such standards are implemented at the state level for the issuance of a CCW, then eliminate the reciprocity statutes and allow a state CCW to be honored in all states. .

    July 22, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  232. Ken Hensley

    Heidi, The times are a changing. Thats the one thing we can count on as Americans. If and when I am confronted by someone with a knife I will defend my self with my CWP and my 38 cal S&W. However if I am confronted with a gun and I am not armed, I LOSE!! I may even die!! So,as an American citizen my CWP was granted to me after a FEDERAL background check was completed. Seems as though if the Federal granted my approval, so should my CWP be excepted anywhere in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. One LAW, ONE WEAPON,ONE PERMIT,ONE SAFE individual who choose to defend myself as I did for 6 years as a Marine for this counrty. I defended this country,and was willing to die for these rights. The United States has only borders, there are no borders when it comes down to protecting my self and family, nor should there be. The states should see this as an a sign of changes. We are at our strongest when we unite. My vote is for America, not any one state's concerns. This is a Nationwide concern. I will protect my self and my family anywhere,anytime, anyplace, Until my last breath. Thanks

    July 22, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  233. James

    Why do some folks think that firearms are only usefull when defending against another firearm? Does my fundimental right to self defense cease to exist if I'm being attacked with a knife, or a bat, or by six gang-bangers with fists? There's an old saying "God may have made man, but Sam Colt made them all equal"

    July 22, 2009 at 11:27 am |
  234. Hugh

    This is the "UNITED" States of America , Right? We are talking about lawful carrying of weapons by law abiding Citizens for protection of themselves and their families. Ever one I know, of my friends and family would vote yes on this issue. It is our right , period. My wife and I are 65 and we travel around the country a lot. We carry our LEGAL concealed carry guns all the time and should not be in violation of any law. It's very clearly a part of our Constitution. No governing body has the right to deny me my constitutional right.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:29 am |
  235. Tim in AR

    Yes. This is a good amendment. Hope it passes. Makes sense: lawful, valid, CCW permitted U.S. Citizens should be able to carry across state lines and be subject to the (constitutionally correct) laws of the states concerned.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:29 am |
  236. Henry Bowman

    Let's see: The last time I cross a state line I didn't have to apply for a new Driver's License in the state I was entering. And my marriage license was still valid when I relocated permanently to a new state.

    The "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution either means what it says or it doesn't.

    And let's remember: the right to marry or drive a car isn't enscribed in the Bill of Rights, but the right to arms IS!

    July 22, 2009 at 11:29 am |
  237. Will Wallace

    Full faith and creedence, just like a driver's license. That's the way we already have it in Missouri, and there is NO GOOD REASON to have it any other way. Responsible citizens here are no less trustworthy than permitees in any other state. Out of state permitees will abide by the ccw laws of the state where they are guests. The Second Amendment is an unalienable right. The fact that any state infringes on that right should be rendered moot. All the gloom and doom rhetoric is drivel.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  238. Slaphappy Somtimes

    Read the 2nd Amendment. It does not dictate how or where you can bear arms and thus should not be denied state to state, especially if you have and paid for your carry permit. We also have the right to protect ourselves and property, which may require the use of force and in today's economy and rising crime rates we should plan for the worst and hope for the best.

    Although I do support nation-wide carry if you have a carry permit, I believe the States possess the ability to acknowledge permits issued in other States through reciprocity without the involvement of the Federal government.

    If the Federal government gains the power to allow nation-wide carry, then they will have also gained the power to regulate and deny it. Under the 2nd Amendment, the Federal government does not and should not have the power to dictate if, when, or where carry is allowed.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  239. Gene H.

    Militia Act of 1792,
    Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
    Passed May 2, 1792,

    This explains what a militia is, what its duties and obligations are.
    To those who woud disarm us law abiding citizens, I would ask them
    how many violent crimes were committed by law abiding citizens and how many were committed by who do not obey the law? Would criminals obey any gun law restricting gun ownership?

    July 22, 2009 at 11:40 am |
  240. Michael

    VERY GOOD IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am totaly for it

    July 22, 2009 at 11:45 am |
  241. gregg

    Freedom to bear arms is a constitutional right whereas gay marriage is not. The statement on gay marriage crossing state lines is another attempt of the leftist minority trying to make their wheel squeak.

    July 22, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  242. Jimmy Leo

    I think in most cases a legal licensed gun carrier should be able to cross statelines if that state has the right to pack law. We live in south western Virginia which on look at the map will tell you we are in close proscimity of other states, I can walk south and within a hour less I can be Tn. same way walk north for 15- 20 minutes I ill be in Kentucky so I should be able to carry in their states. If a person is going to do something illegal they will not bother to get a permit .

    July 22, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
  243. JUSTICE

    I feel like irresponsible individuals from surrounding cities and towns will register in Vermont and buy the guns so that they can carry them into surrounding areas.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:10 pm |
  244. Dean

    I live in NH and have a CC permit.... what scares me is when I travel to higher crime areas I most likley have to leave my firarm home or just travel in general out of state is a huge grey area. I have a second home in PA "that reciprocates whith NH' but in order to get there I have to go through NY. to do this leagaly is almost impossabile. The ny state troopers give me conflicting advice from "you cant" to "you can if the gun is loocked and kept seperate from ammo" and the ATF will also do the same. it depends on who you talk to. Some officials have told me its up to the officers descretion. so I could be arrested depending on the officer..... this is wrong.. and needs to be fixed... criminals dont get permits.. but it if a person with a permit gets arrested, Now he is a criminal and cant get a permit... thats one way to promote gun control...make us all criminals...

    Dean from NH live free or die

    July 22, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
  245. james m adams

    yes yes,this is great it should make it easyer for law enforsement,it will work,i teack ccw here in ohio,its a good program

    July 22, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
  246. Bernie Metcalf

    I think it's a great idea. In my state,NH it is a Pistol/Revolver License. I have had my license for over 25 years.
    There are around 20 states that allows us to come into there states with
    a ccw license.Vermont is the only New England state that will allow us to come in. I live 6 miles form the Maine border and 30 miles Mass.
    I think the license should be incorperated into our drivers license as we can drive anywhere in the United States.
    Thank You
    Bernie

    July 22, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  247. Ron Kirby

    ABSOLUTELY " YES" !!! The right to defend oneself is gaurrenteed by the Constitution. If someone has completed the process in a state to be considered competent to carry, then so be it. He is the same competent person when his left foot is in Tennessee and his right is in Virginia as when both feet are in either state. I think it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  248. Kenneth

    My God given, state recognized (not state provided) rights don't stop at the state line. My driver's license, marriage license, etc are recognized in all states. Why not my CCW permit? I wasn't required to get a blood test for my marriage license – does that mean my marriage isn't valid in locales that do requre a blood test? As to the view of "why do you need a weapon to protect yourself when we have police" – what are the chances that a LEO will be right there if you are mugged, threatened or worse? No offense to the fine LEOs we have throughout the country, but they can't be everywhere at once. I will not place my own personal security or that of my family in someone else's hands when I can provide my own under the very strict guidance of using potentially deadly force under the law. Again, the law-abiding (i.e. licensed CCW holders) folks aren't the ones you need to worry about...

    July 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  249. carrbow

    Texas along with most other states already honor handgun license from state to state so this law wont make much difference at all.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
  250. Larry Franklin

    Having just completed the training for my concealed weapons permit, I feel I should be able to carry my weapon to other states. The majority of people who carry concealed weapons will never use them, but it is nice to know we have it to protect ourself or others. Larry -Columbia,
    SC –

    July 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
  251. JENNIFER

    I do not agree with this. Lately there has been a lot of crime committed by "so call law-abiding citizens". The husband who is mad at his wife during a divorce, or a nasty custody case, etc,. The list goes on and on. The crimes are increasing among the law abiding citizens. I feel that the so called law abiding citizens with legal guns will start shooting at anyone who looks at them funny. This country has really turned into gun happy fools. We do need to get the guns out of the criminalshands, but we do no need everyone running around with guns hanging off their hips. Also the old laws saying we have the right to bear arms needs to be dropped because it does not mean now what it did in the past. Those laws were written for the situations of that time, not for the situations of these times we live in now. Do I have gun. Yes and will I carry it on me. NO!!!!!!

    July 22, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
  252. Donald

    Hi I do not like the idea of the Gun's Across the States at all i think that the Congress should not even vote on the Gun Act at all.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:45 pm |
  253. Steve G.

    Being a law-abiding citizen I am able to pass the local and federal background checks. Since I am able to obtain the concealed wepons permit and assuming these background checks are thorough, I should be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere in the contiguous 48 states including crossing state borders.

    If I was to break the state border crossing law, I could lose my permit for breaking the law. In my opinion, that's just not right!

    So, am I expected to go around a state which doesn't allow me to travel with a concealed wepon or are these states going to have a secure drop box to leave the wepon and pick it up on my return? Who would protect these boxes?

    Give law-abiding citizens the right to protect their family, their own life, and possibly the lives of others in the face of dangerous criminals.

    It reminds me of a bumper sticker. "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    My thought: If it's criminal to cross state borders with a concealed wepon, only criminals will be crossing those borders with concealed wepons.

    That doesn't sound very safe.

    July 22, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
  254. Shawn

    As long as they all ready have a concealed weapons permit then I would agree.

    July 22, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  255. J

    How about we make a law making it illegal fora criminal to kill someone.
    Wait, we have that one and it doesn't seem to be working.

    Laws are only for the honest people.
    Criminals are break them no matter what.

    So why is our government so intent on making it more difficult for the average citizen to exercise a right that is granted in our constitution?

    We have seen gun control at work, Germany in the 40's ring any bells?

    I say the more honest law abiding citizens carrying guns the better.
    Hey you never know, you may look to one of us to save your life some day.

    July 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  256. h. l."tim" harvey

    Yes the bill allowing one to carry a concealed weapon in any state if one has a permit in another state should be passed-yes if one has a permit in another state that person is welcome to carry in my state-and CNN should stop being so anti-gun–learn a little bit about American culture outside of NY

    July 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  257. ga girl

    Bad idea. I would prefer a country where only law enforcement carried guns, but that is not the reality of our times. The US mentality is that everyone should have a gun because the criminals have a gun, resulting in an old Western gunfight. I think it's sad that we have reached this point and can't feel safe in our own home nor in public places. Leave this in the hands of each individual state. And yes, I am a legal gun owner and travel with it when allowed by law.

    July 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  258. Peter Maurer

    I think it's a great idea. I trust my fellow state's legislators to have made good judgement in the dispersements of gun owner's permits.
    This could avert a crime in another state.
    I'd hate to bring a knife to a gunfight, just becaue I could legally bring only the knife!

    July 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  259. Tina

    Peter has it right! What about a concealed knife? Fingernail file? Spray mace? Are all these illegal too?
    I'd rather be protected by a gun in the hands of a trained resposible individual, than being defenceless on the wrong end of a criminal's barrel!!!

    July 22, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  260. JD Hunt

    Yes this should of passed.

    July 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
  261. Steve Grudzinski

    I think it should be allowed. People are already doing it when they travel anyway for thier safety, now they won't have to worry because it's legal. People need to remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. When I am traveling and have to get off the road to get direction in a strange area. I like to know that I am protected if I run into trouble.

    July 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
  262. Ben L

    I strongly believe that law-abiding gun owners should be able to cross state lines and carry a concealed weapon with the correct permits. It’s our right as Americans to bare arms.

    PLEASE remember, CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT LAWS that is why they break them!

    As for Harry Reid, the only reason he is for this is because he wants to make sure he stays in office. This is one of the only times Harry Reid is doing what the American people want, not what special interest groups want.

    Ben
    Las Vegas, NV

    July 22, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  263. David

    ga girl, I had not thought about the fact that this law seems to force states to accept permitting from other states when heretofore states could write their own weapons laws as they see fit. I wonder, What was the rationale for not allowing this up to this point?

    July 22, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  264. Jonathan Fredlund

    I think it is wrong choice because when they sneek a gun into another state, its asking for crime. Why? Well, EVEN when they dont intend on anything wrong, they may run into someone that sees the gun for some reason and they will not want the person to snitch on them or go to the cops or something and end up shooting the person so they don't do anything about it. Thats my opinion, love the show, thank you!

    – Jon
    Jonathan Fredlund

    July 22, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  265. Tom

    All law abiding American citizens are allowed to own weapons based on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

    I think it's a great idea to allow these law abiding citizens, with lawfully obtained concealed-carry permits, to carry concealed weapons across state lines. Currently, with reciprocity agreements, a person can obtain a concealed carry permit and be allowed to carry a weapon in a dozen or more states based on which state the original permit is issued.

    July 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  266. Chris Meissen

    The very fact that we need a permit to exercise a constitutionally recognized right in the first place is wrong. One should not need a state-issued permit to exercise any right, whether it be the right to free speech, to pray, or to be peacefully armed for self defense.

    However, the laws requiring such permits are now a fact of life. So, since they are required the permits issued in any one state should be honored in all other states as required by Art. IV, Sect. 1 of the Constitution. During the course of my life I've gotten driver's licenses in three different states. Just as with CCW permits, each state had its own unique written and driving tests to get that license. Yet each driver's license allowed me to drive the highways of any of the other forty-nine states. Concealed carry permits should be honored in the same manner.

    The final vote on this issued demonstrated the distrust and disrespect that 37 Senators hold for the law-abiding citizens of this country.

    July 22, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
  267. Rick

    Criminals dont care about the law so they carry guns,, so if i want to abide by the law i cant, so who does it affect,, i should have the right to protect my family and myself,,

    so dont believe the bull thats being said,,

    I know the bill didnt pass,, so the Criminals won,, the only ones that dont want law biding people to carry arms to protect themslves,, are CRIMINALS,,

    think about it,, if the Criminals know that you might have a gun im sure they would think twice about mugging you,,

    last time i checked we still have the right to bare arms,, but we just dont have the right to carry arms,, just dont sound right to me

    July 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
  268. Chris Meissen

    David, the two states that have absolutely no provision for their citizens to legally carry concealed weapons are Illinois and Wisconsin. In those two states, the Democrats controlling the State, in their wisdom, have realized that their citizens lack the moral character, self-restraint, and respect for law which allow those in other states to carry responsibly. I know that seems odd but then one must assume that they know their constituents best. That or said constituents just don't mind being patronized.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
  269. Connie

    I am appalled at all the violent comments. Do we really want to live in a world where you have to carry a gun in your car to feel safe?

    July 22, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
  270. Stu Strickler

    Just 2 votes from passing. I guess I'll just have to be happy with the 37 states I can carry in now. When I travel or plan vacations, I won't go to or spend money in a state that won't allow me to carry my firearm. Their loss, not mine!

    July 22, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
  271. Wervon Browne

    It's amazing how many stupid, ignorant people posted here. They don't now the laws that already exist. They make up statements based on their stupidity and try to pass them off as fact. The fact that criminals don't care about the laws means nothing to these people. All this is noise, scare tactics. It's about time you stupid people sat down and educated yourself on the facts, or as I say it "Stupidity is socially acceptable".

    July 23, 2009 at 8:56 am |
  272. Cory

    I am so sick of these fights on gun laws. I have an idea. Let's all remember the 5th grade when we read the constitution. The second amendment, which should be fundamental, guarantees the right to the citizens of the United States to bear arms without stipulation. This was done by our forefathers so that if our government is taken over by tyrants then we can rise against it and take it back for the people. Historically, tyranical governments deny their people the right to posess or train with weapons so they cant overthrow the government, Duh! "The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people."

    July 23, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  273. Alfred Gerteiny, Ph.D.

    The President made a very persuasive case for a reform of the healthcase system in the US. It is unfortunate though that because ofwidespread ignorance he will be unable to establish a single payer system. I have experienced France's and Canada's single payer systems and found them to be infinitely superior both in cost and quality to the chaotic system in the US. GO Obama!

    July 23, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  274. Andre Marshall

    THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! UNLESS A COMPLETE BACK-GROUND CHECK CAN BE INITIATED UPON CROSSING STATE LINES.

    July 23, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  275. Alan

    The gun debate in this country is certainly a worn out dog that we need to put to rest. Gun laws simply make it more difficult for honest citizens to own them. Criminals do not have trouble getting their hands on guns in the same way that those who partake in illegal drugs have difficulty getting their hands on them. Stricter gun laws keep the guns in the hands of the criminals. It is a shame what judges, lawyers and legislators have done to the Constitution of the United States of America. The 2nd Ammendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. PERIOD. It does not list 10,000 exclusions and does not say that legislators and states may just up and negate this ammendment whenever it pleases them. American citizens should be able to bear arms, whether openly or concealed at anywhere in this country at any time. IF they then commit a crime or bring unjust harm to another because of this THEN they should face extreme penalties. Laws should address the consequences of being a "bad" citizen not restrict the freedoms of those who are good citizens.

    July 23, 2009 at 11:22 am |
  276. Rhoda Ubaechu

    What are criteria that the states use to determine who can hav a gun or who cannot? I guess one of them is mental health, how can u ever know that? One can be sane today and insane tommorrow, remember the astrounot. You never know when somebody can push u to ur breaking point, if u had a gun u would use it. The best bill to pass is to take the gun away from individuals.

    July 23, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  277. michael holzgang

    The Constitution provides the fundamental right to bear arms. But it doesn't mean that you have to, it's a choice. Protecting yourself is a fundamental given. Law enforcement is diminished in power of authority. They are authorize to carry and shoot in public, but if done then society complains, officers become criminalized. After all there is the STUPID idea that criminals have rights. Explain that coherently!!! Why the concern over a criminals death at the hands of the police? Are the police to sacrifice their lives or is it the point to eliminate the threat? A fundamental rule in life is to eliminate the threat. The populous pays the price tag, the criminal pays for nothing, gets medical and legal care for FREE, and that spells STUPID.

    July 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm |
  278. Chris Meissen

    Rhoda, I don't know where you live but where I live guns are quite commonly owned. And it is very, very rare to see a gun misused. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have found that fewer than 0.2% of guns are ever misused.

    Given the blanket false statements here showing an irrational (not based upon facts) fear of firearms perhaps we should instituted background checks and mental health checks before allowing people to exercise their First Amendment rights and post on the internet. I am, of course, being facetious (look it up.) Freedom means taking the risk that some small portion of the populace is undeserving of the rights exercised by the majority. But one doesn't respond by infringing upon the rights of the members of that responsible majority.

    July 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  279. G. Samuel Richardson

    Once again I say; If our right to are repealed by way of government restrictions, then only the *hoodlums* on the streets will bear arms! After all, (To give my personal quote)>GUNS DON'T KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, CRIMINALS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

    And if our legislators are so hell-bent on stopping the ordinary LAW ABIDING citizens from being able to help protect themselves, then what about their (The Law Makers) own homes, cars, wives, daughters, sons, relatives, and friends who at any moment could be faced with a deadly threat, and the difference between their life or death is whether they have right to pull a firearm and stop an imminent threat on their life, or the lives of others?

    Democrats and Republicans should get onboard by the car load, and ~PASS THE BILL, ALLOWING ALL "LAW ABIDING" CITIZENS TO CARRY THEIR PERSONAL WEAPONS, INCLUDING ACROSS STATE LINES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERSONAL PROTECTION~

    This law will help to preserve all of our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. And furthermore, passing this law will possibly land a few more well deserving criminals in prison where they belong.
    After all if a criminal points a gun and then get shot or arrested, there will be no doubt about WHO the perpertrator is now will there?

    July 23, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  280. Chris Meissen

    Connie asks; "I am appalled at all the violent comments. Do we really want to live in a world where you have to carry a gun in your car to feel safe?"

    The answer is, of course we don't want to live in such a world. But the reality is that, like it or not, we do live in such a world. The very fact of this discussion proves it.

    In the real world, there are real criminals, sociopathic predators who prey on honest people for fun and profit. These sociopaths go armed or in gangs sufficiently powerful to overpower unarmed honest folk, i.e, unarmed victims. Wishing this were not so does not change the reality. This remains the reality no matter how much we may want things to be different. Visualizing whirled peas does nothing to change that fact. But deciding to take responsibility for one's own safety can help.

    Learning how to use a gun lawfully, obtaining one's CCW permit, and then utilizing that permit by carrying a gun can make a difference in the same way seatbelts make a different. Just as wearing a seatbelt won't keep you from being involved in a car wreck so carrying a gun may not prevent someone from trying to rob or rape you. But, just like the seatbelt, that gun can make a big, beneficial difference in the outcome. Both safety devices increase your odds of walking away from something that could otherwise have been much more tragic.

    July 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
  281. Connie

    Chris – yes – for most people who have only a little required training, you are correct – That gun CAN make a big difference in the outcome – the innocent person could be dead from the use of their own gun by the criminal. Most of us would be too frightened or too weak to fight off the offender. Domestic violence often has destructive outcomes because there is a gun too readily available to the angry couple. At any point, when can a person snap – maybe it will be the guy in the lane next you you at the stoplight because he had a fight with his boss today?? We all need to learn to share this world and enjoy living in it with others – not go around frightened and shooting each other.

    July 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  282. Chris Meissen

    Connie, if you are one of those too timid to defend herself, then by all means remain defenseless. That is your choice. But don't force the rest of us, those willing to use a firearm to counter a stronger assailant, to follow your timid path. Some of us do believe that society is better off without the criminal than without us.

    As for your, well, fantasies about innocents having their guns taken away and used against them I can only ask how many such accounts you have seen reported? In the quarter of a century since my college English teacher spurred me to follow this issue I've seen innumerable accounts of armed citizens successfully defending themselves. I've yet to hear or read of one having their own gun used against them although, to be fair, I have heard of that happening to a few criminals. It does happen to police but that is because police, unlike ordinary citizens, must actually attempt to secure bad guys. You and I can maintain distance and run away when the threat is halted.

    And finally, you're concerns about licensed CCW holders going berserk and opening fire at traffic lights has been repeated over and over each time a state has contemplated issuing or reducing restrictions on CCW. And each time, those concerns have been shown to be nothing but paranoid fantasies, chimeric concerns that have not emerged as facts. Even our state's newspapers, which editorialized wildly against CCW five years ago when it was passed, have subsequently admitted that the dire predictions have proved false.

    The simple fact is that in none of the 48 states with laws allowing some form of CCW license have licensees been shown to be a threat. That has been proven true whether a given state's license process is prohibitively strict or extremely simple. Licensees in all states have proven in the main to be more responsible and law abiding than the general population and even the police. There is absolutely no reason to believe that had Thune/Ritter passed these licensees would behave any differently in other states than they currently behave in states recognizing their permits.

    July 27, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  283. Al

    No way it should be gun owners allowed to carry concealed guns across state lines!

    July 28, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  284. John

    Yes, if a person has a legal carry permit it should suffice in all other states!!

    July 28, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  285. Chris Meissen

    Al, what is there about crossing imaginary corporate borders, i.e., state lines, which would make a licensed, well-behaved CCW holder suddenly more dangerous? What other fundamental rights should become null and void simply by crossing such a boundary?

    According to the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution's Bill of Rights, the ability to carry should have never been limited. This is the way the right to keep and bear arms was interpreted (except for negroes, of course) until the passage of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1867. Only the passage of those Reconstruction Era laws and amendments led to such infringements as we now have. Research the racist roots of gun control and you'll understand what I'm saying.

    July 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  286. Angela

    What's next? Will you need a driver's license for each state that you travel through during a family trip? Cars and cigarettes kill more people than hand guns owned by law abiding citizens carring CCW permits! We are concerned about those who carry firearms illegally who HELLO will carry illegally obtained, unregistered firearms across state lines regardless of the outcome of this legislation and debate.

    July 29, 2009 at 7:06 am |
  287. Rev. Martin Altizer

    I find it to be logical and would urge my legislators to vote pro on this bill

    July 30, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  288. Chris Meissen

    Way, way back on July 22, Mallory wrote: "The constitution’s second amendment says: `A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' This clearly says that people in a well-regulated militia have the right to bear arms. ... ."

    With all due respect, Mallory, you got it backwards. The amendment's reference to the need for a well regulated, i.e., properly functioning, militia is the explanation for why an armed citizenry, from which to draw that militia, is necessary. If you will read the writings of those who authored the Constitution, you'll find that they all recognized the necessity of having a citizenry raised from childhood to own and use weapons. ,
    From the time of the earliest English kings it was both a right and a duty of the common citizen to own and be skilled in the use of such weapons as he could afford. Rather than constantly restricting that which the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," if our country were truly to follow both the letter and intent of that document the federal government would be issuing military-issue weapons to every able bodied citizen willing to commit to training with them. Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution states, "... The Congress shall have the power ...To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

    That does not mean the National Guard. The Supreme Court recognized in US v Miller (1939) that the National Guard is a part of the U.S. Army, organized and funded as such, and not the militia as recognized by the Constitution.

    But, again, the reason for the right to keep and bear arms is that only by having a generally armed populace familiar with and skilled with the use of arms from which to draw can we have functioning militia as envisioned in the Constitution.

    July 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  289. B. STENGEL

    Regarding Pres. Obama's approval declining rate: Nobody asked me! I approve of his efforts to aid the American peoples' healthcare now more than ever. I am not a welfare recipient; I am Caucasian, have advanced degrees; live in a nice neighborhood, and I am a registered Republican who supports Mr. Obama because of his honesty. More and more "people just like me" are in the process of deciding on whether to eat, drive a car, or get health insurance. Many cannot change jobs because of benefits restrictions. We help the entire world. It's time we get some help for ourselves, and Mr. Obama is trying to do that. BTS/Clarence, NY

    August 3, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  290. Mrs. Harris

    I think the President is doing an Excellent and Exceptional Job...

    He can not clean up this mess. in six months or four years.

    Everyone is jumping on his case about everything.

    If the people were more on Pres Bush back maybe we would not have such a mess.

    I say to you nay Sayers Get a GRIP. You gave Bush 8 years to do what?

    August 3, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  291. ROBERT BURNS

    NO NO NO ONE PLANE IS PLENTY STOP THE OTHER TWO NOW.. HEIDI I LOVE YOU SHOW YOUR THE BEST, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.

    August 6, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  292. ROBERT BURNS

    dO NOT LET PEOPLE CARRY GUNS ACROSS STATE LINES. sTOP LETTING THE NRA TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANT DO. PRETTY SOON WE WILL BE BACK IN THE WILED WEST. HEY WYATT I CAN DRAW FASTER THAN YOU. STOP IT NOW.

    August 6, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  293. Chris Meissen

    Robert, which of the 48 states that have enacted some form of CCW permit system have experienced that "WILED(sic) WEST" problem? In every instance of which I'm aware, the press and even the law enforcement officials who were originally opposed to the idea have conceded that none of the fantasized and predicted problems have occurred.

    The people who would have carried across state lines under this amendment are already legally carrying responsibly in their home states. What makes you believe they'd somehow become more dangerous upon crossing an imaginary geographic border? I notice that neither you nor anyone else opposed to the idea will acknowledge and answer that question.

    August 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
  294. Connie

    This is for the person who wrote and said "never saw a headlines where someone used a gun where not needed" - well this is about the upteenth headlines in the paper - people do not need to have a weapon in their car who cannot control their temper! Who is to say what would set some off and they would use it on you, me, or your innocent child – wakeup!!!
    Angry Fla. driver shoots teen, kills self on road

    ODESSA, Fla. — Authorities say a 34-year-old southwest Florida man shot a teenager in an apparent road rage incident and then killed himself.

    Pasco Sheriff's deputies say the unidentified driver got angry when a 17-year-old driver did not pull up far enough at a stop sign. The man shot the teen, hitting him twice in the leg. The shooter then turned the gun on himself, killing himself inside his car.

    Authorities do not believe the two knew each other before the shooting. The investigation continues. The teen was taken to the hospital. His condition is not known.

    August 10, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
  295. Daniel

    To Mark: I'd be willing to wager 80% or Canada's Criminals have them.

    November 8, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  296. Chris Meissen

    A tragic story, Connie, but since the shooter in Pasco county Florida is "unidentified" one cannot know if he did or did not possess a valid, legal CCW permit. This topic began over an amendment to allowed licensed, legal CCW permit holders to carry in states outside their own. To use as examples incidents in which the perpetrator could very well be a criminal or other hoodlum illegally carrying is to deliberately confuse the issue. Your example makes as much sense as saying that we should outlaw rifle competition universally nationwide because an Islamic terrorist shot up Ft. Hood Texas with a pair of handguns. The topics are unrelated.

    November 8, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
  297. Michael

    the license is called a Federal Identification Card and therefor should good for all States just like a drivers license, we also have to be Finger printed and answer Questions to prove we are responsible adults with no criminal record and no drug usage or mental health issue's which is allot more than what is needed to obtain a drivers License, and lets not forget a Car can be used as a weapon or by someone who uses drugs and or is unfit to drive.

    November 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm |