American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
July 22nd, 2009
06:23 AM ET

Allow concealed weapons across state lines?

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Sen. John Thune (R-SD) listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill February 26, 2009 in Washington, DC."]

From CNN's Carol Costello and Ronni Berke

The Senate is poised to vote Wednesday on its third piece of gun rights legislation this year – and gun control advocates are racing to shore up any wavering Democrats who might join Republicans in supporting the measure.

The Republican-sponsored Thune Amendment, attached to the Defense Authorization Bill, would allow individuals to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the United States that permits carrying concealed weapons, provided they are legally registered.

Colin Goddard is lobbying against the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), that would allow people to carry concealed firearms into other states, so long as they "...have concealed carry permits from the state in which they reside."

Goddard is not a typical lobbyist; he is a survivor – a student at Virginia Tech the day Seung-Hui Cho burst into his classroom and opened fire. Goddard was shot four times. Thirty-two other students died before Cho killed himself.

Now, Goddard is in Washington to tell lawmakers that even if he'd had a gun he could not have stopped Seung-Hui Cho.

"When I smelled that gunpowder, that's when I knew what was happening," Goddard recounted. "I knew there were other students in my class who were sitting in their chairs to be able to effectively respond to someone coming in a door like that guns blazing you need millisecond response time. Even trained police officers can't do that," he says.

He argues the proposed law would make it easier for unbalanced people to carry guns anywhere they choose, including states with more stringent concealed gun laws. And he isn't the only critic. Mayors from 450 cities took out an ad in USA Today urging the Senate to vote down the amendment.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent, is fiercely opposed to the measure. "What it would do is put an enormous number of guns on the streets and it takes away states' rights," he says.

But The National Rifle Association says carrying a gun is a constitutional right, as well as a matter of personal safety.

"At the scene of the crime, there are only two people there, the criminal and the victim," says NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "The victim always ought to have a right to own a firearm and have a firearm to protect themselves if they choose."

Case in point: last year, a bank customer, legally carrying a concealed weapon near Detroit, thwarted a bank robber who claimed to have a bomb. But gun control proponents say for every hero, there are many villains. Like Richard Poplawski – who legally owned guns and used them to kill three Pittsburgh police officers. And Seung Hui Cho – who bought guns legally and killed 32 others at Virginia Tech.

What do you think? Should concealed weapons be allowed across state lines?

Filed under: Gun rights
soundoff (259 Responses)

    If u pass the test to get a drivers licence, you can drive from state to state. So if you have gone through and passed all the requirments for a CCW then why cant you carry from state to state?

    February 20, 2010 at 8:36 am |
  2. Ron

    heck never know what can happen espically when you are traveling!

    January 12, 2010 at 10:37 pm |
  3. Mark G.

    Before I post, let me say, if this is a pop-culture social setting, logic probably won’t work if it is inconsistent with pop-culture attitudes. But I’ll proceed anyway.

    Goddard doesn't seem to be interested in understanding his lack of knowledge as he did not go through a permit class. At least where I'm from, you may not get a permit if the instructor for the permit class feels you don't have the emotional ability for DGU (Defensive Gun Use). Goddard also cannot attest to his feelings after being trained in such a class.

    How about addressing what affect it would have on Cho's choice if he knew several of his victims might be carrying. Suggested by recent social psychological research, his use of firearm force is underpinned by the assumption it would flip the social power differential. If he knew others would also have firearms, he likely would never have stepped onto that slippery slope to begin with.

    Criminals use weapons because it positions them higher in the power differential to so they can be successful in their crime – it makes the crime a much easier endeavor. If they knew they would be unable to tip that differential, because other unknown patrons may be armed, they may be less inclined to commit the crime in the first place. Robbery for instance would become a much less easy thing to commit.

    What if the majority of citizens carried? Carrying is a complicated thing; there are criminal and civil issues to be concerned with, requiring training. Moreover, in this day and age of instant communications, it would be a very different society than the gunslinging past.

    I suspect our government would also be more interested in listening to its citizens.

    October 29, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  4. Nelson S.

    So let me get this staight... You want to govern wether it is my right to carry a weapon to protect me and my family. I fully understand that not all situations are right timing but, more often they do and can. So
    WAKE UP! because the criminals will love you, so they can have the upper advantage. then you wonder why bad things happen to good people. God help us, to protect this country.

    October 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  5. D. Wright

    Each State should have it's own right to choose it's laws on concealed weapons. I agree with New Yorks Mayor not wanting guns, here's why- New York is huge, with a lot of people, in a small area. If everyone has a gun, how safe are you really going to feel walking down the streets of NYC?? I live in Seattle, WA where it's very easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Walk in, fill out paperwork, get fingerprints, in 3 minutes your done and receive your permit 2 weeks later. On top of that, i was the only typical person getting mine at that time out of about 30 people (who all looked like a bunch of thugs from the streets). They did nothing but curse in front of my 5 year old daughter the whole time we were there. Afterwards we went to the Sea-Tac Mall where gun shots rang out due to gang violence. Even if i had my permit and gun, it wouldn't matter, there's people who want to kill... and innocent bystanders are going to get hurt or killed no matter what you do.

    August 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
  6. Tyrone

    I think this is ludicrus and will put the nation on amber alert daily. I also think the fear comes from not have God as head of your life. The nation is a wicked nation and history repeats itself until you make positive changes for the betterment of all people.

    July 23, 2009 at 8:55 am |


    July 23, 2009 at 8:33 am |
  8. Richard

    The 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal Government – so far, at least (unless the Supreme Court reaches another goofy decision) – it does NOT apply to states. States can ban guns ENTIRELY without violating any Constitutional provision. It is ironic that normally "states rights" conservatives are trying to take away states rights in this case.

    July 22, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  9. Doug Long

    Few people that have permits use guns in crime. We would rather not use the guns.

    "We the people" are the well regulated militia. Remember who also fought in the war for independance!!

    As a responsible gun owner, I do not need any stupid state or federal laws. Nor did the people of the founding fathers days.

    The problem here and now is a disregard for human life. The liberal tells me I can not kill in defense but yet condones the slaughter of the unborn.

    July 22, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  10. Kelly

    Ray Hamel in VT:
    You're an idiot if you think Vermont has a low crime rate because of gun ownership. Vermont has a low crime rate because it has a fairly educated, fairly homogeneous population with a decent standard of living.

    July 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  11. Savage

    The stats don't lie, There is a direct correlation with the percentage of legal gun ownership and crime rates. That relationship is such that areas with high rates of legal gun ownership have lower rates in crime. Look at Vermont's approach to gun control and their crime rates compared to say California's. How many people out there would cruse around Compton with their doors unlocked and feel safe? Criminals aren't going to obey any law, this one or otherwise. They carry their guns wherever they please anyhow, and by limiting places law abiding people can carry just turns on the bright neon "get your next victim here" sign. My state recognizes reciprocity with 16 others, but I'm of the school of thought that if I'm in a place I truly believe I have a NEED to carry I'm probably going to do so regardless. It's far better to be alive illegally carrying than dead not. The real problem is that no one should be made a criminal for simply protecting themselves. We need a uniform nation wide system for determining a persons ability to get a CWP permit (i.e. pass a shooting and written test) and that permit should be honored in every state.

    July 22, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  12. Boots

    If u pass the test to get a drivers licence, you can drive from state to state. So if you have gone through and passed all the requirments for a CCW then why cant you carry from state to state?

    July 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  13. Jason

    I have noticed that in this blog you have those who feel that no one should have guns. Let's take England for example: You think crime has dropped? Okay read this

    Oh and what about the man that shot 2 robbers in his country home! Guess what the robber that lived sued him, and guess who is still in prison. This can happen in the good ole USA.

    The statistics of incidental killings, however tragic, are still so low in consideration to all other statistics with firearms. You don't feel safe in Houston? Let me ask...was this after Katrina? No offense but Houston didn't have 2 planes flown into its buildings. My gf works @ Yankees stadium I am terrified that sometimes I might be delayed in picking her up and she has to wait. I don't think I've ever felt that way in Texas. This incident with brothers: was that in Cut-n-Shoot, Tx or Vidor? Not exactly the same situation!

    July 22, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
  14. Mike South

    I dont not need a second amendment or a bunch of over paid slack jawed gas bags to tell me that I have the right to defend myself


    July 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  15. Tristan

    Ok, think about it. By taking away guns from law abiding people all your doing it making it easier for crimials to do what they do best. If a criminal knows for a fact that a house they are breaking into will not have a gun in it, whats stopping them. Like in CA where you can't own a gun. Where I live, 95% of the homes do have guns, do you think we have many break ins? No we dont, because criminals are scared to even try here.

    Secondly, if you take guns away from law abiding people, will criminals still have guns? Yes, because do they care if they break the law to get a gun, so they can break the law again? No they dont. All your doing by taking guns away from the good guys is making it easier and safer for bad guys to get away.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
  16. Cynthia

    Alcohol killls tens-of-thousands of people in just our country alone, over the course of just ONE holiday weekend. New Year's, 4th of July, even just Superbowl Sunday BBQs and partys will kill thousand upon thousands...and repeat the killings year after year. Alcohol kills.

    But, the real reason we have the right to bear arms, is because an armed public is meant to keep government honest, and if it (the government) becomes corrupt, it's meant to be changed at the end of the barrel of a gun. That's why the founding father's wanted to make sure the government could NEVER take away our right to both have and use guns. That's why the only Right to proceed an armed public, is freedom of speech.

    And, the 2nd amendment outwieghs reciprosity etc etc, because of the purpose it's meant to both serve and protect. To ensure that the government remained "of the people, by the people, and for the people". ALWAYS remained. No matter how much society or the times changed.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
  17. Larry McCarter

    There is no question that concealed weapons permits should be honored in ALL states. A person's right to protect himself and his family should not be limited by state lines.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  18. John, Brooksville Florida

    I have a concealed weapons license. A citizen in Florida already can carry in 33 States due to combined agreements with those States. Another 15 States is no big deal.

    "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." I keep my pistol concealed and have never pulled it. But should some perpetrator cross the line, I will use deadly force. I am a retired Army veteran of two wars. It angers me that criminals can buy a gun in a rest room or car trunk and the rest of us are victims......To any muggers or burglers reading this....Make my day! Todays vote will be a bad day for career criminals and a relief for victims, past ,present and future.

    The hold out States have crime statistics off the chart. I would not visit them armed or not. They are crapholes full of bad guys,gangs and nut jobs. Joke if you must about States like Florida and Georgia, I sleep very well at night and travel without fear.

    July 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  19. Monika

    I believe that a private citizen should carry weapons. We are not in the 1700s anymore. The government should amend the amendment. Weapons are only meant for law inforcement. I do believe that people have a right to defend themselves. In this case they should take up karte lesson. Good for the mind and body.

    If the government is allowing people to purchase guns, then those who have guns in Wyoming should respect NY state law on gun control. Meaning no crossing state lines. Or they should have a national standard of training and background check taking the most strict state guidelines and applying it to the Federal standard.

    Again, I do believe that common citizens should not have guns in the home or car. Look what happened in the Colombine school shooting and others like it. We want to teach kids that guns and violence is not the answer to resolve problems from the begining

    July 22, 2009 at 11:11 am |
  20. Kelsey Francis

    You incorrectly reported that Seung-hui Cho purchased his firearms legally. His purchases were, in fact, illegal, as he failed to disclose his disqualifying mental health history.

    The fact that he was still able to pass his background checks despite this disqualification is troubling, but it does not make his purchase legal. It merely indicates a failing in law enforcement, not in the law.

    Regardless, Cho both carried and discharged his firearms illegally, and every single trained, law-abiding gun owner was by definition prohibited from defending himself and others against Cho's rampage.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  21. David MacDonald

    Should be just like a driver's license. If you can cross state lines with your car, regardless of driver's training, you should be able to carry concealed if you have a permit.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  22. Robert Winiarski

    The 2nd amendment has been beaten to death. We are no longer stealing land from the Indians nor are we fighting off attacks by Indians or gunslingers of the wild west. We live in a modern day society and there is no reason for people to be carrying guns. This is not what our forefathers had in mind while drafting the Constitution. We do not need any Wyatt Earps roaming the streets of our country playing tough guy. It's time everyone put their head on straight and smarten up. Enough of this already.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  23. larry ramos

    Bloomburg did not answer the question ,he went on with cops getting shot , =this has noting to do with that, Its about your rights Its about the good guys not the bad guys , The bad will always have the guns .We need to have a way to keep safe when cops are not there.
    Criminals don’t hesitate to use a weapon.For the rest of the pople that do not understand that our rights are slowly taken away just open your eyes .

    July 22, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  24. Donald Kraly

    As long as you have a permit to carry you should be allowed to carry your weapon with you across state lines. Stop all these illegals from entering our country and it will reduce crime. Today you must be prepared to protect yourself and your family when traveling.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  25. William in Mount Dora FL

    Here in the Sunshine State, the requirements for a carry permit are a bad joke. You only have to take a 2-hour course. You only have to fire one round, and you don't have to hit the target. And some classes don't even use real guns; they use some kind of air gun.

    But our neighbor to the north is even worse. In Georgia, no training or skill test is required. The head of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has said that a blind person could get a carry permit in Georgia.

    It is outside of reason for the people of New York or Michigan to be subjected the silly requirements of states like Georgia and Florida.

    July 22, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  26. Randall Blizzard

    I find this whole arguement mute. The second ammendment clearly makes reference to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security for a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If followed to the letter, only members of a Militia have the right to bear arms. This (Federal) ammendment is then followed by several states declaring their own conditions of owning and bearing arms. So if the Federal arguement is followed, (congress only has powers over federal laws) no person unless a member of a Militia shall own and bear arms, hence only these persons shall be permitted to transport guns across state lines. If one follows the individual states declaration regarding arms, then their particular law must be respected, therefore prohibiting transport across state lines unless conforming th "their laws".

    July 22, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  27. Xavier

    I am a law abiding, democratic citizen of Oregon and a concealed handgun license owner. My personal opinion is that as long as stringent federal background checks are made before the purchase of any firearm and even more so before a person is issued a license then it is not the licensees that the public ought to be worried about but all the unchecked firearms that have made it into the wrong hands that should be the real concern..

    July 22, 2009 at 10:09 am |
  28. Patriot

    Djordje – What a weird society is right. Show me where in the constitution it says “the right to free healthcare (that shall be paid for by increased taxes) shall not be infringed”……I keep looking but I can not find it. ....Maybe the right to bare arms, being that it IS a constitutional right, has as much or MORE relevance that you FIXATION on healthcare.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  29. Eric

    Countries that ban guns in the hope that it will eliminate violence next talk of banning knives (happening now in the UK). What's next? Ban lead pipes, candlesticks, rope, cricket bats?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  30. Matt

    Let's make this very simple.

    If the all the states agree to the same rules or registration and places you can carry then it should be universally accepted to let gun owners cross state lines. Not until concensus is reached should this ever come to pass.

    There is not now nor should there ever be a need to pass a federal law to do it!

    My personal thoughts on the subject of registration.

    The gun should follow the same rules as a chain of evidence from start to finish.

    At the time of purchase they test fire that weapon, take pictures of that weapon with that fired bullet to document the distinct rifling from that weapons barrel along with the firing pin strike on the spent casing from the test fire. Take a full 10 digit finger print of who is buying that weapon and at least one digit from the employee. This all should be registered with the FBI and homeland security along with the States Office of Investigations where the weapon is purchased. Example: “GBI” for Georgia

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

    1. Criminals carry ILLIGAL firearms across state lines and into places they are not allowed EVERY day. The only people that laws effect are the legal, legitimate, law abiding citizenry, and they (you and I ) are exactly the ones that SHOULD be allowed to carry a gun.

    2. If you have a concealed weapons permit, it means you have all ready undergone a FBI and State back ground check, that your fingerprints are on file, that you have never committed a felony......your a good guy.

    3. Why are some people so focused on blaming crime and societies issues on inanimate objects, instead to taking responsibility for individual choices and actions?

    4. It’s a FACT…(check it out), that the states with the easiest gun laws also have a lower gun and violent crime rate. States that have the strictest gun laws also have the higher gun crimes……interesting !!!.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  32. c e robichaux

    I feel that there should be strict laws to enable a person to get a conceal permit- – although i have one in Louisiana and had to get an extensive background check,fingerprinted,picture ID,state police approval,training,class time,firing range time etc. to receive the permit. the problem is more people die or become a victim of guns from thugs and people that are not supposed to own a gun. WITHOUT GUNS IN THE HOME AND ON YOUR PERSO (LICENCED TO CARRY) YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE FROM HOME INVASION,PERSONAL PROTECTION !! WE CAN FIND JUST ABOUT ANYTHING TO GET STATISTICS ON AND MAKE DEBATES ON- – -THE BOTTOM LINE WE HAVE MUCH MORE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAN TAKING PERSONAL PROTECTION FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  33. Scott Bryson

    It seems that those who get concealed handgun permits are afraid that they will someday be involved in a violent incident. That seems to be the motivation for the nation wide concealed handgun movement. I have a concealed handgun license from Texas. I used to work at a correctional custody facility ... now I am an RN at a local medical center. The application process seemed lengthy and thorough. If there were students with concealed weapons at Virginia Tech, perhaps there would have been fewer victims. People who think that guns kill people must think pencils mispell words.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:37 am |
  34. John Oblak

    I am definitely in favor of allowing honest, law-abiding citizens who have fulfilled the requirements needed to obtain a concealed carry permit to carry in all of the states. The comments by the NY mayor are so incorrect that they should never have been aired on CNN. If I were to speak out against an issue that I was not qualified to judge, I would not get the TV exposure time that the mayor has received. The comments in this forum are predominantly FOR the law to allow concealed carry throughout the US IF you have met the strict requirements of any state.

    There are many good books on this subject that need to be read by those who oppose concealed carry. When law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry a gun, the crime rate goes down because the criminals are not sure if their victim is carrying or not.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:36 am |
  35. Douglas H Brunswick

    It is very easy to use isolated incidents to justify getting your message across. Most states have tough laws to filter out those that should not be carrying concealed weapons. The criminals will never obey the laws (they're criminals!). I have a CCW permit in my state and sometimes am not allowed to carry in other states while traveling. Since I am in a new unfamiliar location and could possibly be vulnerable to criminal attack, I feel that this law is needed. Please note that I am a military veteran, have been qualified to intelligently csrry s concealed weapon, and have never benn arrested for any crime. Reaching senior citizen status puts me & my wife in a physical disadvantage against younger, stronger and quicker individuals who would prey on the weaker. My CCW permit is an equalizer, and like the majority of gun owners/csrriers, I hope that I never have to draw my weapon against another person, but I will protect myself , my wife & any oythers in immediate danger from thugs & criminals.

    I bet many of these anti-gun nuts would be very happy to have a CCW individual close by when they are under attack by those who would do harm.

    Concealed carry is a deterrent to criminal action as the criminal only wants to prey on the weak and if he suspects that his intended victim is armed, he will look for other prey, like gun control advocates.

    The comments about the wild west are ludicrous. These nuts watch too many westerns on tv, Mnay individuals carried guns in the old west and they did not go around shooting people. The guns were for self-defense. Gimme a break!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:36 am |
  36. Kevin

    There are states with helmet laws and states without. A helmetless motorcyclists can't drive from one state to another without being expected to abide by a states particular helmet law. States are allowed to make their own laws for a reason and visitors to states are expected to abide by its laws. If a conceal carry is allowed cross state, we may as well do away with state legislation and allow Washington to make our laws.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  37. Eric

    Cities that have restrictive gun laws have no shortage of crimes committed with guns, so why not make it easier for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves? People who routinely cross state lines shouldn't be criminalized when they leave their home state.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  38. Nate from Columbus, Ga

    A criminal is careful, and generally attacks at the victims weakest and most vulnerable point. Having a gun, would increase the likelihood of further violence and injury, and possibly death. It amazes me how the republicans, who shout national security and family values!, can also endorse flooding our streets with firearms and endangering our citizens and police forces. Here's a thought, would it also be alright for an Oakland resident to smoke medical marijuana in Mississippi? Would it be alright for a legally married gay couple to reside comfortably and legally in Tifton, Ga.. Look at who the GOP defends, GUN lobbyist (NRA), Tobacco, Insurance, Defense Contractors, and Phamecutical Companies. This way they can PROFIT by us shooting and killing each other, Smoking ourselves into illnesses, buying insurance that may not pay or cover what we expected, starting wars in Iraq and GIVING ALL the MAJOR contracts to thier contributors and supporters, and finally, administer and despense THIER overpriced pills, tonics, and ointments to help us cope. Who do these representatives represent? Can you image the logic of being for GUNS, TOBACCO, and WAR-and opposed to HEALTHCARE? GUNS IN CHURCH, GUNS AT SCHOOL, GUNS IN BARS, --–NOOOO!, I think that it's a terrible Idea!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:35 am |
  39. Tony

    Granted that some may have been victimized by those who may have a permit to purchase a gun, just as innocents have been injured by vehicles driven by someone with a drivers license, but how many crimes would go uncommitted if the perpetrator had some inkling that his prey may be "packing"?
    Crimes committed by those with a gun, legal or illegal, get much more play in the news than those without a weapon, thus slanting public opinion on the matter. Anyone can get and carry a gun illegally, but a law abiding citizen in my state cannot.
    I would feel more secure in my life if given the opportunity to defend myself against such criminals and believe that many crimes would not even occur if the perpetrators had any thoughts that his victim may be armed.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:32 am |


    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  41. ronvan

    As a follow up I wanted to ask all of you, what kind of weapon/caliber, should someone be allowed to carry, concealed? Revolver vs auto pistol? What about ammo? Regular bullets or the newer, "hi tech" bullets that like to penetrate almost everything? And, God forbid, what is going to happen when someone carrying a .44 auto pistol, using hi grade ammo, shoots someone, and the bullet carries on hitting 3 more, innocent, people? How many of you think, even with training, that you could shoot "straight", in a split second situation? And for those "hunters" that use semi-auto rifles. Explain to me where the sport is when you can put 20 + rounds on your target when you miss with the first one?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  42. Gloria

    On your piece this morning you pointed out that a man with a concealed carry permit, stopped a bank robbery. Then you mentioned two incidents of men who legally owned guns who killed many people, but they did not have concealed carry permits. For the most part, anyone can buy a gun but not everyone is capable of getting a concealed carry permit. The requirements are much more stringent in most states. Constitutionally, we have a right to bear arms, and that right has slowly eroded over the years. We have a right to be able to defend our lives and property.
    As long as states are diligent to screen applicants rigorously, then there should not be an issue. States like Vermont, do create a problem.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  43. Joan Weytze

    (Now that I have the correct section to post in...) About the bill that would allow concealed guns to be carried from state to state: There is a misperception that packing a gun will make the average person safer. Most people do not have the training to use a firearm to defend themselves or prevent a crime effectively and safely. The other factor is situational awareness. For example, let's say everyone on campus is allowed to carry a gun. You hear shots and see someone lying, bleeding, on the ground . You look up, and you see a stranger pointing a gun. What do you do? OK, let's say you want to play good Samaritan, and you shoot that person. Congratulations, you've just shot another good Samaritan (who had a bead on the real killer). This happened because you did not have situational awareness. So, how can the ability for everyone to carry a concealed weapon from state to state possibly make anyone safer? I for one do not want to get hit by some vigilante's bullet.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  44. Lee

    Yes, a citizen that has a current concealed handgun permit should be allowed to carry across state lines. Criminals have no respect for the law, and therefore carry and use guns illegally. I have the right to protect my life and property and the lives and properties entrusted to my care. U.S. citizen, and retired military of 26 years.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  45. berry boy

    Why say no to something without looking at the details of the law. Here in Georgia you have to get finger printed and go throw a six month federal & state background check. For those of u that are worried about the ones with the license how the ones with no license. How about make it whair you have to have a license to even buy a pistol therefore the person finger prints are on record. There are much better ways to handle the firearms & licenses than by jest saying no.

    Berry boy

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 am |
  46. Debbie

    I live in NYS and am a strong proponent of our gun laws. I have lived in many other states, including Texas. When I lived in Texas I often saw people getting drunk shooting guns. One incident I remember, I was with a group of people at a pool hall and one person in the group got in an argument with a young man and we were followed by another group of people shooting at us from their car. I watched a friend who was drunk go get his gun and shoot at his brother during a disagreement, I watched as he fell to the ground; he lived but I thought he was killed at the time. I had a bullet fly by my head while someone was cleaning the gun. Before moving to Texas I didn't have any concern about guns. But even law abiding citizens have emotions and can react in immature ways. Anger, depression and anxiety occur to each and everyone of us at any given time. We are not always able to contain those emotions and if you put the gun in the hand of a person at that time, they may shoot others, themselves or both. I feel much safer living in NYS than I ever did with all those guns in Texas. And, I feel safer walking the streets of New York City than I ever did in Houston. More guns doesn't make it more safe, there will just be more people shooting and a greater potential for harm.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:22 am |
  47. J Gibson

    This bill must not pass, it's theory and architecture are deceiptful and wrong. Listen to the 450 mayors who have to clean up the mess that the few, but very vocal, pro-concealed gun promoters advocate. Not all states are the same and shouldn't be treated as such. Americans should have the right to own a gun but a license is a priviledge and with that comes the responsibility of common sense. In the 200+ years of the 2nd Amendments life, we seemed to have lost that.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:19 am |
  48. Kevin

    TO JOHN KELLEY (above)

    What are you talking about? NRA GI joes? I am a hardworking American, law abiding citizen, with a family, that cares very much about this country and I am sorry that you are not informed about who the NRA is. Well, I am not a "NRA GI joe" as you put it. If you were a member of the NRA, you would understand that the NRA members actually care about your rights as well as our own. If you decide someday to get a permit or a firearm, you will still be able to do so, thanks to all the hard work done by the NRA. Now, go crawl back in your house and wait for a NON-NRA person to invade your home and rob you at gun-point. Then, you might understand what the NRA is trying to protect (your right to defend yourself with a fire-arm). 2nd ammendment: read it.

    Below is the John Kelley qoute:
    Just what we need; more guns or more gun laws protecting people who are just dying to shoot some innocent passerby who happens to be walking on their front lawn. When is it enough. When is society going to wake up and understand that guns/weapons are part of the problem and not the solution. I want to know how many of these NRA GI Joes have gone to war or have sons or daughters that have gone to war. If you want to go shoot someone, join the army.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:18 am |
  49. david frost

    you people forget that it is one of our basic rights under the federal government to own and bear arms . it is not up to the states to control this issue its time that the federal goverment had balls to make sure that we keep all the righs that this country was founded on we can be attacked and bombed by another country but would be almost inpossible to take us over as long as we are armed in our own homes

    July 22, 2009 at 9:16 am |

    The state of Michigan requires a comprehensive program of training and also a complete backround check with finger printing that goes in the National data base.I personally feel the system used should be accepted anywhere in America.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:14 am |
  51. Brian Baron

    I have to admit I am truly amazed at the attitudes of individuals on this subject. It just goes to show why some people might be able to get a gun license or even a drivers license, but not many of them could drive in NYC during rush hour, so why would i allow them to carry a gun in the NYC subway system. Recipe for disaster..!!!


    July 22, 2009 at 9:14 am |
  52. Mary S

    The only people who should be allowed to carry guns are the police or the military. Making a statement like, "...guns don't kill people, people do", is irresponsible and unconscious. What are you twelve? Guaranteed if any of your relatives or friends were to be killed by a gun, you would be the first to condemn guns. Grow up now and save the rest of us from this impending doom and recognize that guns are dangerous even in the hands of a trained professional. Guns should be outlawed globally.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:13 am |
  53. Andrea

    I just wanted to say, some of the comments on this topic are comical to say the least. I am a FEMALE and I own guns. To the Lady in the earlier comment about more Men are voting for than Women, since you are willing to give up the right to bear arms, are you also willing to give up your right to vote as well?

    July 22, 2009 at 9:11 am |
  54. Irving Washington

    The laws in New York prevents the major majority of New Yorkers form obtaining a CCW (even business owners have problems). Purchasing a weapon and obtaining a CCW are two different things. The qualifications for the one is not the qualifications for another. If you take a pole of people who carry you will find that while traveling in different states they actively engage in applicable states laws or risk becoming a felon with no rights.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:10 am |
  55. Martha Casey

    I inherently have this inalienable right (that which cannot be given or taken away), and our Constitution enshrines this right in law - there are no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.

    If there had been other people with the means of defense, then the Virginia Tech shooter would not have murdered so many.

    Testimony of Darrell Scott
    Father of two victims of Columbine High School shootings
    Littleton, Colorado
    Before the Subcommittee on Crime
    House Judiciary Committee
    United States House of Representatives
    Thursday, May 27, 1999 2:00P.M.
    2141 Rayburn House Office Building

    LADY Educates U.S. Senators On The 2nd Amendment

    A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.
    B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
    C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.
    Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services
    A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80
    B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%.
    Statistics courtesy of the FBI
    So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
    gun owners.
    Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
    before this gets completely out of hand!!!
    Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on
    lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:09 am |
  56. Jack Schmied

    Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons sets us apart from the civilized world. It is a frightening piece of proposed legislation. Just as scary is the fact the the news service has failed to provide the public with the results of some investigative reporting. Doing some research on accidental gun deaths in the USA, with our current gun laws, might make an impact on public opinion. Also, both Canada and Mexico are victims of crimes due to the easy access to guns in our country I would not be surprised if our tourist trade would see a marked decline if this right to carry law passes.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:09 am |
  57. Pat

    When a person is given a concelled carry permit, that person has gone through a very involved background check. I am a person who carries a pistol in my own defense. In my almost forty years of carrying a weapon in my own defense I have reached for my weapon a total of three times, only pulled it out once, and never fired it. but , the day that I pulled it ,if I did not have it , It probably would have cost me my life.
    The RIGHT to KEEP and Bare ARMS is a RIGHT granted by the CONSTITUTIONof the UNITED STATES. If I am deemed to be a worthy person in one state ,why would I be unfit to carry after crossing an invisible line seperating two different states?I live in New hampshire, most of my family lives in Massachusetts, I live within a mile of Maine, and I love to travel since I am retired. So what am I to do if I should find that I have accidently strayed into another state? Feel like a criminal and
    hope and pray that I'm not pulled over for a broken headlight and face charges of carrying illegally. I SAY NO. If you are fit to drive a car in one state you are fit to drive a car in all states. And if you are fit to carry a gun in one state you are fit to carry in ANY state. I hope they straighten out this injustice. REMEMBER, If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have GUNS.

    July 22, 2009 at 9:08 am |
  58. Wesley Shipp

    Interesting thoughts on carrying concealed weapons across state lines! I think people should know that many states already recognize neighboring states concealed permits and allow individuals who carry concealed handguns to carry in there state. I have a concealed handgun permit out of the State of Oregon where I live, my permit is good in at least three other states, including Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and even California. One reason this works, and you do not hear about violations is that responsible people like myself, and others who have extensive experience with guns, are responsible and as to date there are no violations, or as in the case of Oregon, no fellonies have ever been committed by anyone who has a concealed handgun permit! That being said, it is succesful and works because these men and women are very responsible and are guaranteed the right to carry under constitutional and state laws. No one really knows how many of us carry concealed handguns, or if we would have a chance to stop a criminal, depending on the circumstances of the crime being commited, but it is unfair for you to report that one would not have time react to a killer when their could have been someone who was in a position to stop such a killer. I am not one who would ever want to kill anyone at anytime, but if I was faced with someone killing innocent people at a school or any other place, I would act with precise judgment, being very careful to not hurt any innocent people around. Wesley Shipp

    July 22, 2009 at 9:08 am |
  59. A. Merk

    Yes it should pass, and yes CNN is anti gun. They have been for along time.. It’s funny to see who telecasts in, and who sits inside a studio. Hummmm wonder who's contributing to CNN's funding? I have seen to many broadcasts on CNN where they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to guns. Its all scare tactics to try to scare the unknowing and easily mislead. Thought the media was supposed to be unbiased, not in this day in time. Its all about the ideology and thinking of who’s contributing and or paying the bills. That’s why I take what I hear and see with a grain of salt most times. I have friends who are local anchors here, and what they say and what they believe and know is true most times don't coincided with the network but they have to say it anyway, or go search for another job..

    Back to guns, I love my guns and am sick in tired of non gun lovers trying to infringe on my rights!!! If you don’t like guns stay away from them, but stop trying to impose your way of thinking and beliefs on me! And stop trying to vilify different types of firearms just because of how they look. Law abiding firearms all chamber and fire one bullet for every trigger pull. So in reality the all work mechanically the same, wither if they look like you dads bolt action rifle, a SKS, or AR15. It’s cosmetic. It’s like trying to ban a Corvette just because of the way it looks and have everyone drive a Mustang. They both operate and are pretty much the same when it comes to the mechanics of how they operate. It’s the user that decides rather or not to break the law and speed not the car. Same concept! And for you info most firearm fatality are caused by hand guns not AR15’s or AK’s as if most non gun lovers could tell you which was which if you laid them both in front of them. Start thinking for yourselves and stop being brain washed.. Sorry went a lil of topic, but yes CCW permits should be accepted across state line’s, and Mr. Bloomberg I have a lot of police officers here who would agree with me!

    July 22, 2009 at 9:05 am |
1 2 3