Jump to content
TedderVision
Sign in to follow this  
Nubbie

Conceal Carry Act of 2020

Recommended Posts

 

Governor Sharp, for himself, introduces

A BILL

To provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the Concealed Carry Act.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(b) For the purposes of this act "qualified individuals" must:

(1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law;

(2) carry a valid photo identification document; 

 (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence; and

(4) be 21 years of age or older. 

SEC. 3. CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT.

(a) Qualified individuals may carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

(b) Qualified individuals who lawfully carry or possesses a concealed handgun in another state may carry or possess the concealed handgun in state or region owned lands that are open to the public.

SEC. 4. CAMPUS CARRY.

(d) Qualified individuals who are employed by institutions receiving funding from "K-12 Education" and "Higher Education" may carry or possess a concealed handgun at the public institution that employs them. 

(e) Qualified individuals at institutions receiving funding from "Higher Education" may carry or possess a concealed handgun at the public institution they attend. 

SEC. 5. ENACTMENT.

(a) This act shall take effect immediately. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

This bill, while I believe has good intent, is horrendous. 

Firstly, to be “qualified”, a person need not actually have received licensure. They are not required to have a concealed carry, only be eligible to get a license. Mr. Speaker, then what’s the point of the issuing liscenses? What would prevent someone not allowed to carry to simply carry and say “Oh I’m qualified”. Will law enforcement verify these? Rather we need to ensure that only those who should have guns do.

Second, this bill will allow college students to carry on their campuses. However this is problematic due to it invalidating the laws of Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, North and South Carolina. Over half of our representation of states would be invalidated. Now he says it’s about safety. But isn’t allowing staff alone enough? 

Therefore,

I object and propose the following amendments

Sec 2.  (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by his or her state of residence; and

and

Sec 4.- strike all of subsection e

and

add Sec. 5 “Requiring Background Checks for all guns sales

All gun sales or transfers may only be completed after a background check of the buyer or recipient of the firearm or must go through a liscensed dealer

i yield 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Isnt it something? When we offer up what it takes to see this bill through, the Majoroty party say no. We say that we ought to be clear about who can conceal carry because of vague language and the GOP say no. We say that we should make sure that all gun transactions comply with Federal law and they say no. We say that maybe college students aren’t the best carriers of concealed weapons when there are already teachers, nor should we just drag the majority of states to do something they don’t want and yet, the Majority says no. Why are they against clarity, consistency, and cooperation?

They believe that this law would keep us safe, that the more guns we have makes us safer. By that logic the governor would have to agree that the Wild West days there was almost no crime. 

What we’re asking for is clarity in language, consistency among the states, and cooperation with already established national laws. The gentleman can say “oh it’s clear enough” but we’ve demonstrated that it’s not. He can say “the majority of states do want campus carry” but that’s untrue, because they would have it. And he could say “we shouldn’t have to follow federal law at the state level” but he doesn’t have the courage to do so. So he owes and answer, not to me. Not to the people of Arkansas. But to every person in the Southeast

1. Why not clarify?

2. Why not have consistency?

3. Why not follow federal law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

The bill is very clear. Federal law is being followed. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 mandates that individual and corporate firearms dealers have a Federal Firearms License. FFL holders must run potential buyers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Campus Carry will make our schools safer against any potential active shooters. What this bill does not do is allow any individual to say that they are qualified as this bill states that you must be allowed to lawfully purchase a firearm under federal law. All the gentlewoman wants to is add more needless regulation. The bill is fine as is, and that is why I've issued the whip as is.

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Spsaker,

I know the gentleman likes to use regulation like it’s a swear word but merely saying “nuh uh” doesn’t address the issue. 

When Sec 2.3 says “or” it’s giving an alternative. So by the standard English reading of this bill someone may either be carrying their concealed license or simply just be qualified, but that’s not provable without the license. All that we’re asking is that if people choose to conceal carry that they be licensed and carry it. There is nothing stopping someone from carrying who says “oh I’m qualified” regardless if they aren’t. 

Second, private sales aren’t addressed here, but they should be. Private sales allow for a gap to exist where background checks aren’t required and the federal laws isn’t followed. Just saying “oh this is just more regulation” doesn’t make it the right thing if we allow it. The gentleman bears the burden of proof to close the loopholes of language and private sales.

i yield 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×