Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/25/2011 11:33:35 PM EST
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6331

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

Friday, February 25, 2011


Last week, H.R. 822, was introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Schuler (D-N.C.). The measure would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill also applies to Washington , D.C. , Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:42:10 PM EST
If passed, does this mean with my TN permit, I could CCW in California because they simply issue permits?
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:42:21 PM EST
Common sense legislation?

What do these guys think that their job is to serve the public and improve our lives?
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:43:37 PM EST
So with my New Mexico permit, I could carry in California? COOL! I will then have more rights than Californians!

Even though I think the bill's sponsors are well-meaning, I am very, very leery about letting the Federal government get its nose under the tent flap. I think this should remain a states' rights issue.
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:46:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2011 11:47:54 PM EST by gs1150]
With regret, I will say-

It will never even come to a vote in the senate.
It is dead BEFORE arrival.
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:50:22 PM EST
I just got that email too.
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 11:55:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2011 11:56:13 PM EST by packingXDs]

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
So with my New Mexico permit, I could carry in California? COOL! I will then have more rights than Californians!

Even though I think the bill's sponsors are well-meaning, I am very, very leery about letting the Federal government get its nose under the tent flap. I think this should remain a states' rights issue.

Its a proper use of Federal power. Ensuring legal documents from one state applies in another. No different than marriage licenses, DLs, etc.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 12:07:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 12:07:59 AM EST by flyfishnepa]

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
So with my New Mexico permit, I could carry in California? COOL! I will then have more rights than Californians!

Even though I think the bill's sponsors are well-meaning, I am very, very leery about letting the Federal government get its nose under the tent flap. I think this should remain a states' rights issue.

except this isn't a states rights issue

expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right that's hindered by state lines is the job of the federal gov't

Link Posted: 2/26/2011 2:27:51 AM EST
Does anybody remember the Thune Vitter bill. It was the same thing. It got to the senate and lost by only two votes. So there is a good chance that this new bill will pass. The Thune Vitter bill was introduced in 2008 so it could pass now becasue there are more Republicans in the Senate. So people start calling your reps and Senators. This bill could very will pass!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 3:58:37 AM EST
I don't like the idea that off duty police are authorized to carry nationwide, when honest law abiding citizens are banned from it, so in that respect, the bill is good.
I don't like the idea that this bill could set a precedent, and be used as an argument to further weaken state's rights, so that is a common concern.
I don't like that a fundamental right, recognized in the Constitution, is not incorporated and protected from state and local prohibitions and restrictions. In that respect, the bill is good because it could help correct a current flaw in the system.

Aw, heck, when in doubt, choose LIBERTY!
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:00:42 AM EST
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:02:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!


Did you read it ? Its only applicable to states that issue carry permits.

Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:04:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Originally Posted By millfire517:
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!


Did you read it ? Its only applicable to states that issue carry permits.



Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:05:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 4:06:55 AM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:07:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Its a proper use of Federal power. Ensuring legal documents from one state applies in another. No different than marriage licenses, DLs, etc.


This - except it involves guns which are not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore, unlike a hundred thousand other things that the federal government has the power to regulate (see Amendment #10) gun ownership and the right to bear arms is not protected. Personally I wish that one of the early Admendments to the Bill of Rights would have spelled out the right of the people to keey and bear arms and prohibited those rights from being infringed.


If only the founding fathers had such insight.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:09:49 AM EST
So long as all it does if make states honor the permit from another state, just like they have to honor drivers licenses, I am OK with that.

If it sets up some sort of federal licensing scheme, I cannot support that.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:16:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:

Originally Posted By Paul:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:
Its a proper use of Federal power. Ensuring legal documents from one state applies in another. No different than marriage licenses, DLs, etc.


This - except it involves guns which are not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore, unlike a hundred thousand other things that the federal government has the power to regulate (see Amendment #10) gun ownership and the right to bear arms is not protected. Personally I wish that one of the early Admendments to the Bill of Rights would have spelled out the right of the people to keey and bear arms and prohibited those rights from being infringed.


If only the founding fathers had such insight.



If only our country had SOME history at all of that right not being infringed

Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:38:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
So long as all it does if make states honor the permit from another state, just like they have to honor drivers licenses, I am OK with that.

If it sets up some sort of federal licensing scheme, I cannot support that.

From the sounds of it (without reading the actual text of the bill), it simply tells states that if you issue carry permits, you have to honor any other state which issues permits as well. That should be a no-brainer as something we should all give our full support behind.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:42:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:

Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

That's why I keep voting for him Got a number of personal reply letters on 2A issues, he's a damn fine politician and works really hard to stay in touch with his constituents, others could stand to learn from him.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:42:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 4:44:38 AM EST by packingXDs]


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document 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 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) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.




ETA:

This editor really hates copy/paste in Chrome.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:48:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Originally Posted By millfire517:
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!


Did you read it ? Its only applicable to states that issue carry permits.




But my Utah and Florida permits would work here on Long Island.



I better call Chuck Schumer and tell him to support it when it gets to him.



Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:52:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheJammer:
If passed, does this mean with my TN permit, I could CCW in California because they simply issue permits?

Yup.

But most of the subjects of the state of California would still not be legally allowed to CCW in state (unless you live in a quasi shall issue county).

I have a feeling that if this passed, many of the traditional anti gun states would still lock people up who are caught carrying regardless of the law. Look at how anti states routinely ignore the FOPA travel provisions.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:54:35 AM EST
Read the article. THis bill has been introduced every year since 1995.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:57:33 AM EST
I think.. if you have the right to own a firearm, you should have the right to carry it anyway you want to in any state in the US, so long as it was leagaly purchased and you ar leagaly allowed to own a firearm.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 4:57:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:14:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
So with my New Mexico permit, I could carry in California? COOL! I will then have more rights than Californians!

Even though I think the bill's sponsors are well-meaning, I am very, very leery about letting the Federal government get its nose under the tent flap. I think this should remain a states' rights issue.

Its a proper use of Federal power. Ensuring legal documents from one state applies in another. No different than marriage licenses, DLs, etc.


WINNER! It is not a state's right to decline the recognition of another state's document.

In the Constitution, its called the "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE"

No camel nose or tent here.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:15:11 AM EST
I would rather the states handle it...
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:22:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 5:23:45 AM EST by pale_pony]
Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:
I would rather the states handle it...


So, I have an Oklahoma driver's license but I'm driving to Florida...BTW, my personal driver's license is issued by the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement, not the Department of Public Safety like most people's driver's licenses...

Arkansas will be no problem, they honor Oklahoma DL's, but I'll have to stop in Tennessee and take another driving test and get a license there too. I guess I'll have to walk or hitch-hike through Georgia because they don't issue driver's licenses to us peon citizens, and I'll have to study for the Florida driver's test because it's nothing like Oklahoma's?

This state-to-state carry license is bullshit.


ETA: At least I get to fool-around when I get to Florida because they don't recognize my Oklahoma Marriage License either...
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:27:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 5:30:14 AM EST by 103]
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:
I would rather the states handle it...


So, I have an Oklahoma driver's license but I'm driving to Florida...BTW, my personal driver's license is issued by the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement, not the Department of Public Safety like most people's driver's licenses...

Arkansas will be no problem, they honor Oklahoma DL's, but I'll have to stop in Tennessee and take another driving test and get a license there too. I guess I'll have to walk or hitch-hike through Georgia because they don't issue driver's licenses to us peon citizens, and I'll have to study for the Florida driver's test because it's nothing like Oklahoma's?

This state-to-state carry license is bullshit.


ETA: At least I get to fool-around when I get to Florida because they don't recognize my Oklahoma Marriage License either...


The states recognize each others' DLs with no help from the Federal Government.

ETA: Also, there are marriages that other states allow that Florida law states as void ab initio. So a gay marriage from Massachusetts is a nothing in Florida. There has been a lot of full faith and credit discussion on arfcom lately––it would be helpful if everyone discussing it would first research that area of law.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:28:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:
I would rather the states handle it...
I would usually agree,however the states have proved time and time again that they won't. For example. My GA permit is no good in SC, but it is good in AL, TN, and FL.

Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:32:36 AM EST
Do you really think pigmonkey would sign it if it arrived on his desk?
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:47:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mech2007:
Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Originally Posted By millfire517:
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!


Did you read it ? Its only applicable to states that issue carry permits.




But my Utah and Florida permits would work here on Long Island.



I better call Chuck Schumer and tell him to support it when it gets to him.





YEah, as a New yorker, im sorta laughing but at the same time my face is like this ––
Im laughing because for the life of me i can't see NYS EVER allowing this, they will probably nab you for "unregistered handgun" or some shit.
NYC also issues permits for carry, you think they are going to allow it?
It just would be so awesome to see their heads explode though if it did happen. Bloomberg would die of a stroke right in the middle of a press conference. bye bye bloomy!
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:49:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 5:50:07 AM EST by Calgunner]
My California ccw (Soon, especially if this bill goes somewhere) would work In Los Angeles (City) and SF ?
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:56:25 AM EST
This sounds good in theory but it wil not work because some states and cities will simply ignore the law and arrest people because nothing is going to stop them and nothing will happen to the arresting officer, their supervisors, or the DA who brings up illegal charges. Just look at the FOPA and New York City.


Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:02:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 6:03:27 AM EST by DragoMuseveni]

Originally Posted By packingXDs:

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.





Great, more abuse of the interstate commerce clause. This sets a very bad precedent.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:09:29 AM EST
Ive always said I think a CCW should only be a seperate card if a person does not have a drivers license. It simply should be marked on a persons DL and be valid anywhere in the US that their drivers license is also valid. My turbo diesel dually can do alot more damage than my 9mm so wtf lol
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:17:34 AM EST
I don't know. Constitution trumps and it isnt federal licensing. I've been opposed but this would allow me to (legally) carry in Laughlin and Vegas.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:25:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
So long as all it does if make states honor the permit from another state, just like they have to honor drivers licenses, I am OK with that.

If it sets up some sort of federal licensing scheme, I cannot support that.

From the sounds of it (without reading the actual text of the bill), it simply tells states that if you issue carry permits, you have to honor any other state which issues permits as well. That should be a no-brainer as something we should all give our full support behind.


And if that is what gets passed, I am all for it!

Esp. since MD issues permits. It would absolutely KILL my Dad and brother that I could carry there but they couldn't.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:28:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 6:29:28 AM EST by Tango7]
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:30:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By Badlatitude:
Ive always said I think a CCW should only be a seperate card if a person does not have a drivers license. It simply should be marked on a persons DL and be valid anywhere in the US that their drivers license is also valid. My turbo diesel dually can do alot more damage than my 9mm so wtf lol


I think so, too. Especially here in NC - my CCW permit # IS my DL #.

Maybe add a different background behind the pic, just like they do for under 21 drivers.

Maybe put the BFL on it?

Oh, and the use of the ICC in the bill =
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:32:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By packingXDs:

Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
So long as all it does if make states honor the permit from another state, just like they have to honor drivers licenses, I am OK with that.

If it sets up some sort of federal licensing scheme, I cannot support that.

From the sounds of it (without reading the actual text of the bill), it simply tells states that if you issue carry permits, you have to honor any other state which issues permits as well. That should be a no-brainer as something we should all give our full support behind.


And if that is what gets passed, I am all for it!

Esp. since MD issues permits. It would absolutely KILL my Dad and brother that I could carry there but they couldn't.


I am from MD too, I would be pissed if that happens. I wonder if an out of state permit would work?

Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:52:49 AM EST
If I am reading this right. Each state laws would have to be followed. so If I am entering a state with a mag restrictions then I cannot carry with my higher cap mag? Also doesn't CA have a gun lock requirement? How would that work for a gun bought out of state and carried into CA.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:53:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2011 6:55:15 AM EST by DragoMuseveni]

Originally Posted By Tango7:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Good deal.

Last time this came up a good many here were against it.


Wasn't the last version limited to resident CCW's? Without a compact between the states, NonRes CCW's weren't recognized - a real problem for those of us in occupied states when visiting states with similar restrictions even now. As an example, I can CCW under my MN NonRes in MO, but not in KS (at least the last time I visited there) because my state of redisdence doesn't allow CCW.

I still couldn't carry in Illinois Daleybamaville, but my CCW would be good in any state that has a CCW program.

Boy, that'd piss off the NJ (D)'s.

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Great, more abuse of the interstate commerce clause. This sets a very bad precedent.[/div]



But for a change it's being used in favor of a right, instead of further restriction thereof.


That's what it might look like right now but wait until some Marxists says because the carry of arms by law biding citizens affects interstate commerce the federal government must regulate and license people wanting to carry arms. It won't matter if your in a free state with no intention of ever leaving it. If you want to carry arms you will need to be licensed by the Fed.

The ground work is already there for that leap of logic. This Reciprocity Bill would only make it much eaiser.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:54:37 AM EST
No Carry Cities are like Sanctuary Cities (Soon we will have a Sanctuary State)
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:55:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Originally Posted By packingXDs:

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.





Great, more abuse of the interstate commerce clause. This sets a very bad precedent.

Do tell, if this isn't a proper use of Federal power in terms of interstate commerce, what exactly is? This isn't some ruling saying a guy growing corn in Iowa, is affecting commerce in CA.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 5:56:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Good deal.

Last time this came up a good many here were against it.

And people were against Heller, and just about anything else that has actually been a positive gain for the 2A. Some people prefer the status quo over what could be simply out of fear and ignorance.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:07:34 PM EST
What about VT? No permits here. Nothing to honor
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:08:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
So with my New Mexico permit, I could carry in California? COOL! I will then have more rights than Californians!

Even though I think the bill's sponsors are well-meaning, I am very, very leery about letting the Federal government get its nose under the tent flap. I think this should remain a states' rights issue.

it supports the 14th which upholds the 2nd
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:12:44 PM EST
No permit states would be interesting. Personally I'd go buy 1 acre of land anywhere there is a shall issue, and I'd give the state a nice tip. Then I'd live out my time on Long Island, CCWing despite the draconian laws preventing me from doing so.
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:13:24 PM EST
Don't ask, don't tell
Link Posted: 2/26/2011 6:28:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Originally Posted By millfire517:
Hmm, I might take a cruise through Chicago!!!!!!!


Did you read it ? Its only applicable to states that issue carry permits.



if only md would become shall issue
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top