HR 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011-STRONGLY SUPPORTED By ISPLA!!!
Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
I. THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONCEALED CARRY LAWS
In a 2008 opinion striking down Washington D.C.'s district-wide handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized `that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms' that stems in large part from the right to protect oneself, as well as `one's home and family,' from harm. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
570 (2008). Specifically, the Heller decision found that the right to self defense, as opposed to the creation of a militia or other principles, `was the central component of the right itself.'
Id.at 599 (emphasis in original). More recently, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. XX, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Second Amendment rights discussed in Heller also extend to the states.
Forty-nine states currently permit concealed carry in some manner. Thirty-five states have `shall issue' permit laws, which generally require states to issue a concealed carry permit or license to people who meet the legal requirements. Ten states--plus the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and
Guam--have `may issue' or discretionary permit laws that are administered in varying ways. Four states--Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming--permit the carrying of a concealed weapon without any permit or license (although Arizona, Alaska, and
Wyomingalso have a permitting process in place). Illinois, the District of Columbia, the Northern Marianas Islands, and
American Samoaprohibit concealed carry.
Twenty-five states allow non-residents to apply for a concealed carry permit or license, and
Vermontallows non-residents to carry without a permit while in the state. In most instances, the process for permitting in-state and out-of-state persons is the same. However, some states apply a stricter permitting process to out-of-state residents, including requiring that the person have a valid concealed carry permit from their home state.
A majority of states currently extend reciprocal concealed carry privileges to varying degrees to the residents of other states. Fourteen states grant outright recognition of all valid permits issued by another state. Ten states automatically recognize permits from other states that also recognize their permits. Sixteen states will recognize another state's concealed carry permit if certain conditions are met. Only ten states do not recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state in any circumstance, although many of these states do allow non-residents to apply for permits to carry a concealed handgun in the state.
Under current Federal law, certain active-duty and retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry concealed firearms across state lines, even while off duty.
II. EFFECTS OF CONCEALED CARRY ON PUBLIC SAFETY
While there is disagreement over the benefits of carrying concealed weapons, many believe that robust concealed carry laws ultimately deter crime by making criminal acts much more risky and costly for potential law breakers. Statistics show a connection between concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.
A study of the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates, published in 1997, estimated that `[w]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 7.65 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.'
III. NATIONAL RECIPROCITY UNDER H.R. 822
H.R. 822 would allow persons with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in all other states that also issue concealed firearm permits or licenses, or in any other state that does not generally prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation would not create a national licensing scheme, but rather would require states that currently permit people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other states' valid concealed carry permits.
H.R. 822, as clarified by the substitute manager's amendment, does not affect a state's ability to set eligibility requirements for its own residents. The bill instead makes clear that a person cannot use this Federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state's permit or license, unless their own state's laws permit this. H.R. 822 also does not impact state laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various states. All state, federal, and local laws regarding the possession and carrying of a concealed handgun that would apply to a resident of a state will also apply in equal force to a non-resident. A non-resident who is able to show both a valid identification document and a valid concealed carry permit or license will be permitted to carry a concealed firearm in the same manner as a resident holding a general-use permit or license.
H.R. 822 addresses concerns regarding law enforcement's ability to confirm the validity of an out-of-state concealed carry permit by requiring that a person show both a valid government-issued identification document, such as a license or passport, and a valid concealed carry license or permit. The states are also currently able to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed permits. The Nlets system, formerly the National Law Enforcement Teletype System, permits federal, state, and local law enforcement to query handgun permit information for 12 states that have elected to participate in the program. Law enforcement can also use Nlets to send inquiries regarding concealed carry permits directly to out-of-state agencies that issue permits but do not participate in the Nlets concealed carry program. Forty states currently grant some form of reciprocity for out-of-state concealed carry permits and all of the states are subject to the Firearms Owners` Protection Act's Safe Passage Provision, codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926A, which provides a process by which non-residents can transport lawful firearms through states where they could not otherwise carry the firearm. Accordingly, law enforcement is already very familiar with handling and verifying firearms carried by non-residents.
The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 822 on September 13, 2011. Testimony was received from Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor, George Mason University School of Law; David Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute and Adjunct Professor, Denver University Sturm College of Law; and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, with additional material submitted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police, and the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police.
H.R. 822, the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,' is a dangerous bill that would override the laws of almost every state by obliging each to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. The law tramples federalism and endangers public safety.
The harmful impact of this legislation is without doubt. For example, some states require an individual to show that he or she knows how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a concealed carry license. Under H.R. 822, however, these states would be forced to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed weapons even if they do not meet that state's concealed licensing standards concerning basic gun safety or training requirements. During consideration of the bill, numerous amendments were offered by the Minority to address these serious flaws, but none were adopted. Members of the Majority blocked amendments to preserve the application of state laws concerning eligibility to carry concealed weapons within their borders, as well as other amendments that would have allowed states to prevent concealed carrying of handguns by those with out of state permits with convictions for offenses such as misdemeanor assault on police officers and misdemeanor sex offenses against children.
Recognizing the danger that it would pose to our citizens and to law enforcement officers across this country, this bill is opposed by more than 550 mayors (represented by Mayors Against Illegal Guns), major police organizations, domestic violence abuse victim advocates, prosecutors, and faith-based organizations.
Police groups opposing the bill included the International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association; the Police Foundation, National Latino Peace Officers Association; and National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Among the state and local police organizations and individuals opposing the bill are the California Police Chiefs Association; the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police; Colorado Springs Police Chief Richard Myers; Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff Douglas Gillespie; the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police; Minneapolis Chief of Police Timothy Dolan; Duluth Police Chief Gordon Ramsay; Burlington North Carolina Chief of Police Michael Williams; New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly; and Portland Maine Chief of Police James E. Craig. Domestic violence abuse victims’ advocates oppose this bill, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence (a coalition of 56 domestic violence victim advocacy groups) and the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Project. Prosecutors opposing the bill, include the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; the American Bar Association; Minneapolis Office of the City Attorney Susan Segal; Bronx County (NY) District Attorney Robert Johnson; Kings County (NY) District Attorney Charles Hynes; Queens County (NY) District Attorney Richard A. Brown; Richmond County (NY) District Attorney Daniel Donovan, Jr.; New York's Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget G. Brennan; New York County (NY) District Attorney Robert Morris Morgenthau; New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram; Delaware Acting Attorney General Richard Gebelein; Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller; Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan; Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police; Broomfield (CO) Police Chief Thomas Deland; Colorado Springs (CO) Police Chief Richard Myers; and Wheat Ridge (CO) Police Chief Daniel G. Brennan. Faith-based organizations opposing the bill include Faiths United, a coalition of more than 30 religious organizations. Our Lives, Our Laws: People Who Care, http://www.ourlivesourlaws.org/people-who-care.]
For these reasons, and those stated below, we urge our colleagues to oppose this seriously flawed legislation and respectfully dissent.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
H.R. 822 disregards state laws by forcing states to allow the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons by any individual permitted to carry concealed weapons in another state. Section 2 of H.R. 822, as amended by the Committee, sets forth the bill's operative provisions and makes clear that the intent of this legislation is to override the will of the states with regard to who may carry concealed handguns within their borders. It provides that an individual who is not prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of such individual and a valid concealed carry permit issued by a state, may carry a concealed handgun in another state if the other state has a statute that allows the issuance of concealed carry permits or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. Section 2(b) provides that an individual carrying a concealed handgun in a state must be permitted to carry the gun subject to `the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry,' imposed by federal, state or local law that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of that state.
In effect, the bill would reduce all states to the lowest common denominator of concealed carry laws, and would subject citizens to unnecessary public safety risks, contrary to the judgments made by the individual states. As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey stated, `We have a uniquely diverse nation. What works where I currently serve as Commissioner in Philadelphia, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, does not work for our neighbor across the river in
New Jersey. Our laws for obtaining a permit are vastly different, based on well-debated decisions made at the state level.'
The Courts have found that States are within their lawful constitutional power to set minimum public safety standards for carrying concealed guns. The Supreme Court has stated that even prohibitions on concealed carrying are permissible. In
District of Columbiav. Heller, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the District's handgun ban was unconstitutional, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, specified that the Court's holding did not `cast doubt' on other gun laws and noted that `[w]e identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.' In discussing long-understood limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, Justice Scalia noted that `the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.'
The Court thus reaffirmed its ruling in Robertson v. Baldwin that `the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.'
Since Heller, courts throughout the
have rejected the argument that there is a right to carry concealed guns in public. In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court upheld
New York's restrictions on concealed carry, and stated:
This emphasis on the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of `self-defense in the home' permeates the Court's decision and forms the basis for its holding--which, despite the Court's broad analysis of the Second Amendment's text and historical underpinnings, is actually quite narrow.
The language of Heller makes clear that the Court recognized `not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose' but rather a much narrower right--namely the `right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
v. Masciandaro, the Fourth Circuit rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to possess a loaded handgun in a car in a national park. The court explained, `This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.'
The Fourth Circuit cautioned further that the danger posed by guns `would rise exponentially as one moved the right from the home to the public square. If ever there was an occasion for restraint, this would seem to be it. There is much to be said for a course of simple caution.'
Many other courts have similarly reached this conclusion.
In sum, the courts are in accord that there is no constitutional right to carry loaded guns outside the home, and certainly not to carry concealed guns in public spaces. State laws governing such conduct, directly bearing on questions of public safety, should therefore not be nullified by Congress.
See, e.g, People v. Aguillar, 944 N.E. 2d 816 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (stating `the decisions in Heller and McDonald were limited to interpreting the second amendment's protection of the right to possess handguns in the home, not the right to possess handguns outside the home'); Gonzalez v. Village of W. Milwaukee, No. 09cv0384, 2010 WL 1904977 (E.D. Wis. May 11, 2010) (stating that the `Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of guns outside the home'); United States v. Hart, 725 F. Supp. 2d. 56 (D. Mass. 2010) (`Heller does not hold, nor even suggest, that concealed weapons laws are unconstitutional.'); In re Factor, 2010 WL 1753307 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 21, 2010) (stating that the `United States Supreme Court has not held or even implied that the Second Amendment prohibits laws that restrict carrying of concealed weapons'); Dorr v. Weber, 2010 WL 1976743 (N.D. Iowa, May 18, 2010) (stating that a `right to carry a concealed weapon under the Second Amendment has not been recognized to date'); Teng v. Town of Kensington, No. 09cv8jl, 2010 WL 596526 (D.N.H. Feb. 17, 2010) (`Given that Heller refers to outright `prohibition on carrying concealed weapons' as `presumptively lawful,' far lesser restrictions of the sort imposed here clearly do not violate the Second Amendment.'); United States v. Tooley, 717 F. Supp. 2d 580 (S.D.W.Va. 2010) (`Additionally, possession of a firearm outside of the home or for purposes other than self-defense in the home are not within the `core' of the Second Amendment right as defined by Heller.'); Riddick v. United States, 995 A.2d 212 (D.C. 2010) (stating that Second Amendment does not `compel the District to license a resident to carry and possess a handgun outside the confines of his home, however broadly defined'); State v. Knight, 218 P.3d 1177 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009) (`It is clear that the [Heller] Court was drawing a narrow line regarding the violations related solely to use of a handgun in the home for self-defense purposes. [The defendant's] argument, that Heller conferred on an individual the right to carry a concealed firearm, is unpersuasive.').
CONCERNS WITH H.R. 822
I. IMPOSING NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY INFRINGES STATES' RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS FROM GUN VIOLENCE
A. ÌH.R. 822 Would
Override StateLaws Regarding Who Is Eligible To Carry A Concealed, Loaded Gun
H.R.822 eviscerates the authority of states to set their own eligibility standards for who may carry a concealed, loaded gun in public. State officials, law enforcement, and legislators are in the best position to decide crime-fighting policies for their respective jurisdictions. For example, rural areas may not fit the needs of big cities and vice-versa.
States often set standards for carrying handguns on city streets that include criteria that exceed the requirement that an applicant pass a federal background check. For instance, many states, including those with strong gun rights traditions, have enacted laws that prohibit concealed handgun carrying by certain categories of individuals. These include teenagers, alcohol abusers, and individuals who pose a danger to others, or those who have not completed basic safety training. Some states also include individuals who have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, providing an even greater degree of protection than the prohibition in Federal law against gun possession by felons.
The following identifies the various state requirements on applicants for concealed carry permits:
Thirty-five states require gun safety training, of which require live fire drills or other proof of competency with a firearm. The following states require training: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. In addition, Virginia and Maryland explicitly state that internet-based training can satisfy their requirement and
North Dakotarequires certain permittees only to pass an open book exam to satisfy its requirement.
The following states require live fire training: Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
Thirty-eight states prohibit individuals convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes from carrying concealed firearms, including Pennsylvania, which bars carrying by those who have been convicted of stalking, impersonating a law enforcement officer and other dangerous misdemeanor offenses. Research supports these restrictions. For example, one study found handgun buyers who have been convicted of just one misdemeanor are almost five times as likely to be convicted of a serious violent crime as handgun buyers with no criminal record.
Garen Wintemute et al., Prior misdemeanor convictions as a risk factor for later violent and firearm-related criminal activity among authorized purchasers of handguns, J. Am. Medical Ass'n 1998, 280:2083-2087.
Thirty-six states prohibit youths age 20 and under from obtaining a concealed carry permit, including Colorado and
The following states prohibit carrying by people under the age of 21: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and
Twenty-nine states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a concealed carry permit, including
South Carolina, which prevents `habitual drunkard[s]' from carrying guns.
The following states prohibit carrying by alcohol abusers: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Twenty-four states grant law enforcement agencies discretion to approve or deny carry permits to an applicant who appears to be dangerous, including Alabama, which allows sheriffs to grant or deny licenses based on whether `it appears that the applicant . . . has any . . . proper reason for carrying a pistol, and [whether] he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.
Ten states grant broad discretion to approve or deny concealed carry permits (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island); 14 states granted limited discretion to do so (Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming).
Some states have voluntarily entered into reciprocity agreements with other states. These agreements vary from state to state. Ten states honor concealed carry permits issued in any other state and three states allow carrying by nonresidents without a permit. These states are the following: Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
Utah. Nine states, however, choose not to recognize any out-of-state permits. These states are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and
Rhode Island. And, 27 states recognize permits only from certain other states, typically states with equivalent or higher standards. The breakdown of these states is as follows: Alabama (23 states); Arkansas (37 states); Colorado (29 states); Delaware (18 states); Florida (35 states); Georgia (23 states); Kansas (23 states); Louisiana (36 states); Maine (6 states); Minnesota (15 states); Mississippi (25 states); Montana (40 states); North Carolina (34 states); North Dakota (35 states); Nebraska (35 states); New Hampshire (21 states); New Mexico (19 states); Nevada (15 states); Ohio (21 states); Pennsylvania (25 states); South Carolina (17 states); Texas (40 states); Virginia (27 states); Washington (11 states); Wisconsin; West Virginia (21 states); and Wyoming (33 states). Note that Massachusetts allows non-residents with valid out-of-state carry licenses to carry concealed firearms in
Massachusettsin limited circumstances- hunting, attending an organized firearms collectors' exhibition, or the person is participating in a firearms competition.
Some states have recently tightened the requirements for their residents to obtain out-of-state carry permits and cancelled reciprocity agreements with states that no longer meet minimum standards. For example, New Mexico and Nevada both stopped recognizing concealed carry permits issued by
Utahbecause it does not include live-fire instruction as part of its training requirement. Nevada also stopped recognizing carry permits issued by
Florida, which only requires permits to be renewed every 7 years.
H.R. 822, however, would override these State determinations and would force States to recognize all concealed carry permits regardless of the issuing State's standards.
H.R. 822's infringement on states' rights is underscored by the substitute amendment, offered by Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), which the Committee adopted. The amendment exempts the possession and carrying of concealed handguns under the bill from state conditions and limitations `as to eligibility to possess and carry.
Unfortunately, by a vote of 12 to 18, the Committee failed to adopt the amendment offered by Ranking Minority Member John Conyers to eliminate this specific provision from the substitute amendment. As a result, this legislation would override all of these carefully deliberated state and local policies, reducing concealed carry permitting to a new federal lowest common denominator.
Many states have determined that persons convicted of certain misdemeanors should not be allowed to carry concealed handguns within their borders. This is their considered judgment based on debate within their legislatures. As one study shows, misdemeanants who buy handguns are more likely to commit future crimes than other handgun buyers:
Buyers who had at least one misdemeanor conviction were 7.5 times as likely to be charged with a new offense as buyers who had no record.
The more past misdemeanors a gun buyer had, the more likely he or she would be charged with a further offense after the purchase.
Men who had one violent misdemeanor conviction were 9.3 times as likely to be charged with a new offense as men who had no record.
Men with two or more violent misdemeanor convictions who bought a handgun were 15 times as likely to be charged with a serious violent crime as men with no record who bought handguns.
Misdemeanor sex offense against a child: Federal law prohibits possession of guns by felons, including people convicted of felony sex crimes, but not by individuals convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes. Some states have nonetheless decided to deny permits to carry concealed, loaded guns to individuals convicted of dangerous misdemeanors, including sex crimes against children. For example,
New Yorkprohibits people convicted of certain sex crime from carrying or possessing a gun, including the misdemeanor sex crimes of sexual misconduct, forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree, and sexual abuse in the second degree.
In addition, 14 states require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate good moral character, including--for example--a record free of criminal convictions and 10 states grant law enforcement broad discretion to deny permits to carry concealed, loaded guns based on an applicant's record or other factors.
Bruce Hulme, ISPLA Director of Government Affairs www.ISPLA.org
The Definitive Organization Lobbying For Investigative and Security Professionals