A firearms bill that gained approval in the U.S. House of Representatives last week would make sweeping changes to the way the nation deals with allowance of concealed carry, while dredging up the old debate of states’ rights versus federal laws.

Unfortunately, this bill will not help clarify the confusing mix of firearms regulations from state to state, and will likely leave a resident with fewer rights than a visitor.

The House legislation would allow those who have a concealed carry permit in one state to retain that right when they cross the border into another state ”“ effectively making the permit more like a driver’s license. A couple of safeties are part of the bill, of course: Someone who can’t get a permit in his or her home state can’t get one in a different state, and each state’s regulations on locations where concealed carry is allowed would still be in effect.

Under current law, a resident of a state that has a restrictive gun law will have to meet strict requirements to get a permit, and an out-of-stater would have to meet those same requirements if he or she wants a permit in that state. This law, however, would allow the non-resident from a state with a lax permit issuance policy to carry a concealed weapon in a state that would have prohibited him or her from doing so under its own laws.

The legislation presents a fruitful debate. Is the concealed carry permit more like a hunting or fishing permit ”“ whose validity does not cross state lines ”“ or like a driver’s license, which can be used in any state regardless of place of issue?

This is where the states’ rights versus federal law argument comes into play. The states have wildly varied gun laws, particularly relating to concealed carry, so to ask a state with very conservative laws in place to recognize a permit from a state that has a very lax requirement for the permits effectively negates their own law, at least as concerns non-residents.

It makes sense that a concealed carry permit holder would like to be able to bring his or her gun with them over the state line without having to get a separate permit for each state or worry that they will be arrested for doing what they’re already permitted to do at home. Imagine being unable to drive into New Hampshire or Massachusetts without worrying about being pulled over for your suddenly invalid Maine license despite having done nothing wrong.

This bill, however, proposes some sort of shady middle ground between a sweeping federal law and state’s rights, and is not the ideal approach to regulating concealed carry. It strips states of the right to hold non-residents to the same standards as its own residents in this arena, and it effectively makes the most lax concealed carry laws the standard for all states to accept.

Right now, the concealed carry laws of the country are a confusing mash-up: According to the Associated Press, 35 states have “shall issue” permit laws that usually require states to issue permits to residents and non-residents who meet legal requirements. Ten others have “may issue” or discretionary permit laws. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Maine and New Hampshire are “shall issue” states and do issue concealed carry permits for both residents and non-residents. Massachusetts is a “may issue” state.

The debate over how or if concealed carry permits should be administered is one for another day, but this law certainly does not help clarify the situation.

On one hand, the right to bear arms is provided for in the U.S. Constitution, which is on the federal level, so it seems a federal law should be in place to address concealed carry for the nation. The Second Amendment clearly states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but that right is arguably infringed upon when one cannot cross state lines without losing the right to carry a concealed firearm.

On the other hand, however, this is a large, diverse country with a long history of state’s rights and the founders could not have imagined the differences between crowded New York City and sparsely populated Alaska, for example, and how those areas would view this issue differently.

Rather than enact this new law, it seems to be high time for the federal government to clarify the issue of concealed carry and give us all equal footing as citizens, regardless of where we live in the nation.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.