Beware of concealed carry law
To the Editor:
As state representative of the 200th Legislative District, I am extremely concerned about pending federal legislation (S. 845/H.R. 1620, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009) that would allow someone from one state to carry a concealed firearm in another state.
Let me make this clear: I do not stand alone against this proposal. I am the national co-chair of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the State Legislators Against Illegal Guns (SLAIG). This bipartisan alliance of Democrats and Republicans exist to keep guns and criminals indelibly separate.
If S. 845/H.R.1620 is enacted, SLAIG has determined that three detrimental effects would inevitably follow: (1) states' ability to make common sense gun legislation would quickly diminish; (2) gun owners who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the issuing state, would then be permitted to carry in another state, even if the individual would be ineligible for a permit in the state in which he/she is carrying; and, (3) gun traffickers would "shop" for states with the most lenient standards and simply transport illegal guns beyond state lines.
I urge members of Congress to carefully consider the impact that this legislation would have on state legislators' ability to draft and implement laws that are important to our constituency.
Cherelle L. Parker
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Voting insanity
- Bible under attack
- Gruber, then & now II
- Gruber, then & now I
- Postal questions
- Family first
- Gruber, then & now III
- Better immigration recipe
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Neglecting tragedy now