A legislative proposal by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) is a well intentioned bill that, because of its flawed language, will hinder pro-gun efforts on other fronts.

H.R. 339, the "National Standard for the Carrying of Certain Concealed Firearms," would require every state to recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state. This is a laudable goal, as a law-abiding citizen from one state should not lose his or her Second Amendment rights when traveling to another state. Furthermore, the "full faith and credit" clause in Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact such legislation.

There is one glaring flaw in the Stearns bill, however, that, unless fixed, will make an otherwise good bill unacceptable. Whereas the Second Amendment guarantees a preexisting "right" to carry a firearm, H.R. 339 only applies to citizens from states which issue permits. It fails to account for any state, such as Vermont, that does not require government officials to first give a permission slip to its citizens before they are "allowed" to exercise their rights.

Under Vermont law, if you are a law-abiding citizen of any state, you can carry a concealed firearm in the state of Vermont. You do not need to beg the government for permission to carry. You do not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered. You do not need a government issued permission slip; you can carry as a matter of right. And still, according to the Morgan Quitno Press Crime State Rankings 1996, Vermont has the lowest violent crime rate of all 50 states. This system makes Vermont the most pro-gun state in the country.

However, because H.R. 339 only applies to citizens from permit states, Vermonters do not receive the benefits of the bill. In fact, the Stearns bill can actually punish a state for being too pro-gun. H.R. 339 can hurt pro-gun efforts in several ways:

1) H.R. 339 puts tremendous pressure on permit-free states to adopt a permit system. Therefore, a pro-gun state like Vermont will be "encouraged" to pass a permit system similar to anti-gun New York State. If the state does not adopt a permit system, it is, in effect, punished for being too pro-gun, as its citizens cannot carry concealed firearms out of state.

2) Not only will Vermonters be penalized when traveling out-of-state, the bill actually makes a state such as Vermont more restrictive in terms of where a non-resident can carry. Under the Stearns bill, if you are a permit holder carrying in another state which is also a permit state, you are required to follow the same restrictions as a citizen of the latter state. However, if you were to visit a non-permit state, H.R. 339 establishes "national standards" restricting the number of locations a firearm can be carried, such as restaurants that serve alcohol (if you're traveling, this is a likely place to eat), sporting events, etc. Thus, Vermont would be forced to prohibit concealed carry for non-residents in many places where it is currently allowed.

3) Perhaps most importantly, this bill will undermine the efforts of pro-gun organizations who are pushing for Vermont-style legislation in other states. A state legislature will be less likely to consider a proposal that does not allow them the benefits allowed to other states.

One other shortcoming in this bill is that it directs states to recognize each other's concealed carry permits, yet does nothing to require the federal government to recognize these same permits on federal properties. This is ironic in that the Constitution applies, above all else, to the federal government.

The bottom line is this: unless the Stearns bill is modified to recognize a permit-free carry state, it will actually be a step in the wrong direction. This is an easy modification to make, and Congressman Stearns should be encouraged to make it. If the change is not made, GOA finds the bill unacceptable.