Pros and cons of the Concealed Carry Act
Photo courtesy of Pexels.
Jonah Losh, Staff Writer
On Dec. 7, 2017, the US House of Representatives passed a bill making it legal for concealed weapons owners to travel freely across state lines. The bill, named “The Concealed Carry Recipitory Act of 2017” was a major victory for both Republicans and for the National Rifle Association. By treating a concealed carry permit like a driver’s license, the act validates one state’s permit to be used in the other 49 states. It has yet to pass the Senate, though.
Any law concerning guns is controversial, and this bill is no exception. It was coupled with a bill to increase background check measures, in the wake of mass homicides and school shootings. These passed the House 231-198, six Democrats for, and 14 Republicans against.
The bill does not require states to change their current laws, only that states respect other states’ permits.
Gun-control advocates declare that opening state borders for carriers will increase crime and shootings at large. Groups in New York funded by Michael Bloomberg such as Moms Demand Action the “dangerous” bill will “make our communities less safe.”
But 24 republican state attorneys beg to differ: “Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will not result in an increased risk of crime.”
The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies backs this up. They not only show that concealed carry permits do not affect crime rate, but also that they can decrease crime in an area.
“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA.
An obvious pro to the effects of the bill is that it decreases the time and effort a concealed carry owner has to spend before he or she could freely cross a state line. For example, a resident from Washington, D.C. could have dinner in Bethesda, MD with no issues.
On the flip side, states would not know how many people with CCWs are within their borders.
Assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University Mark Roeder weighed in on the issue:
“In accordance with our Federalist system, this issue needs to be policed at the state level and not at the national level. On the other hand, it is the Federal constitution which gives us the right to bear arms. The question is how do you do that in a Federalist system?”
It is “common sense,” he stated, that a state needs to know who has guns, and there are two ways to do that.
“Only allow a concealed carry permit that is valid in that state, or federalize it. Have a nationwide concealed carry policy along with a national database, so every state knows who has a gun.” A con to the effects of the bill is that the only way a state can know who has concealed weapons would be to check every person at the state’s border, which sounds impractical.”
There are over 16 million concealed carriers, among whom is Donald Trump, who is the first “packing” president.
The trick is where do measures to protect citizens encroach on constitutional rights—how to protect law-abiding gun owners’ rights, while keeping guns out of criminals’ hands. It opens the long-standing gun-rights activists’ argument: put guns into the hands of the good people to protect others from the bad people. But how?
The answer may be found in the second part of the bill: heightened—very heightened—background checks.
The pros and cons of the bill flock around a party’s agenda, but in the end, if the gun-rights bill passes or if gun control wins, the central problem of activists on both sides remains and needs desperate attention.
No matter what happens with the legal future of concealed weapons, “states have to regulate who can have a gun,” Roeder said.
