[ARCHIVED THREAD] - NATIONWIDE CCP RECIPROCITY (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 1/16/2011 6:18:29 PM EDT
|
I think we need to push for it this Congress.
Last Congress it was NARROWLY defeated. What say you? I'd love to hear what the detractors say |
|
I spend a lot of time in Maryland, out of necessity, and can not carry there, despite holding a PA LTCF. It would be nice, but you are either in favor of the Federal Government being able to tell the states what to do or you are not. You can't pick and chose the issues.
On the other hand, maybe the Feds enforcing the constitution would be a breath of fresh air for a change. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the lord givith, the lord can taketh away. I don't want the federal government involved with my right to bear arms. Please explain Currently; Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Carolyn MCcarthy.............have absolutely nothing to do with my ability to carry a firearm in my own state as well as many others. I don't want any of them to have a say on the matter. 40 of the states have come over to the shall issue side. If the residents of those non free states want gun rights, they will have to fight for them there is no way the federal government will force their states to issue permits unless SCOTUS rules that they must. Here's the way things have trended and how they stand to date: 
|
|
Quoted:
I spend a lot of time in Maryland, out of necessity, and can not carry there, despite holding a PA LTCF. It would be nice, but you are either in favor of the Federal Government being able to tell the states what to do or you are not. You can't pick and chose the issues. On the other hand, maybe the Feds enforcing the constitution would be a breath of fresh air for a change. It would be the same as drivers licenses |
|
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time. Hopefully sooner rather than later. It's pretty annoying to have licenses that are good in 37 states, but not the one that I live in. 
And most likely not even good throughout your own state. You guys need to fix your own broken laws because a federal mandate through legislation to issue CCWs is not in the cards. The only federal action that could accomplish what you want is a SCOTUS ruling. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time. Hopefully sooner rather than later. It's pretty annoying to have licenses that are good in 37 states, but not the one that I live in.
And most likely not even good throughout your own state. You guys need to fix your own broken laws because a federal mandate through legislation to issue CCWs is not in the cards. The only federal action that could accomplish what you want is a SCOTUS ruling. I've got a better chance of a favorable Federal ruling or SCOTUS decision than I do getting the a-holes this state elects to fix it.  
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. Most foreign countries will honor my driver's license. It's not all that simple; in order that your drivers license be accepted in another state you must pass the requirements of the state you are visiting as well as those imposed by your own state. If CCW was handled in the same manner, the state you visit could deny the ability to carry based on the fact that their requirements are stricter. http://www.golocalnet.com/drivingage/outofstate1.htm |
|
Quoted:
What the lord givith, the lord can taketh away. I don't want the federal government involved with my right to bear arms. Exactly. A lot of people won't see the wisdom in this, but they will the first time a guy in Maryland has his CCW rights altered/regulated because some shithead did something wrong in California. With the Fed being in the business of regulating EVERYONE'S CCW, there will be extra hoops to jump thru, taxes to pay, and incremental restriction on where and what you can carry. I don't have to pay the .fedgov a dime right now and can carry a rifle into my state capitol building as it is.... Why would I want to give control of that so that I can have the legal ability to carry in states that I wouldn't want to go now? I can honestly say I don't have a desire to go to any state that doesn't recognize my permit now-it's their liberal ways that prevent reciprocity in the first place! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if they taketh away, it will revert to the way it is now?
Quoted:
What the lord givith, the lord can taketh away. I don't want the federal government involved with my right to bear arms. They already are.
No, It will revert to the way it is in the ten remaining states that are not shall issue states. States like New York, New Jersey, Wisconson, Illinois, California, Hawaii, Maryland, .......... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Did not think about that |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Did not think about that As with a driver's license, you still have to meet the qualification requirements of the state you want to carry in. And the slave states will set the bar very high just as they do in the "may issue" states. A mere peon from Florida like me will never meet the requirements to carry in states where "Big City Thinkers" hold Power. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Did not think about that As with a driver's license, you still have to meet the qualification requirements of the state you want to carry in. And the slave states will set the bar very high just as they do in the "may issue" states. A mere peon from Florida like me will never meet the requirements to carry in states where "Big City Thinkers" hold Power. Your wrong. It will depends on how the legislation is written and what is says |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if they taketh away, it will revert to the way it is now?
Quoted:
What the lord givith, the lord can taketh away. I don't want the federal government involved with my right to bear arms. They already are.
Indiana has awesome carry laws. What he's worried about is the Federal Government making other states respect the all other states' carry permits, but then standardizing the way they are issued and what privileges they bestow upon the holders. For example, in Indiana, you don't have to take a class to get a carry permit. It's not worth it to have my permit good everywhere if it means I have to take a class for it or have to get it renewed or other such bullshit. |
|
S.845 –– Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 845 IS 111th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 845 To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 21, 2009 Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'. SEC. 2. 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 `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof: `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried. `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'. SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111vwbc3c:: |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Did not think about that It applies to birth and wedding certificates; GED's, HS, College Diplomas; vehicle titles (until you change your residence), wills; and divorce decrees. So yeah we already have a National Reciprocity. Unfortunately few will think that is true until it is heard by a court. Now which court would have jurisdiction on this case? Oh yeah that would be an original jurisdiction US Supreme Court. The NRA (whomever) could bring the suit against all the other states at once. Now here is the kicker, if the USSC says nope states can do what they want, good by recognizing any other state certificate. I'd guess a few states would jump on that revenue stream very quickly. Oh yeah you are married in that other state but not here, until you pay for a new certificate. Oh by the way your a bigamist because you did not get a divorce in all the states in which you are married. |
| The real problem is with the individual licenses themselves. A citizen should not need to seek permission from government agents, to exercise rights granted by the Constitution. There should be no licensing in the first place, so this bill would legitimize already unconstitutional regulations in place. |
|
Quoted:
No. I'd be afraid in a few years, we'd end up with a national carry permit, with national eligibility requirements, national testing standards, etc. No thank you. I *want* a national carry permit. Not to trump or remove state permits, but a permit that would actually allow me to carry anywhere in the US, with a single set of laws that govern it, would be a HUGE improvement over what we have now. |
|
Quoted:
The real problem is with the individual licenses themselves. A citizen should not need to seek permission from government agents, to exercise rights granted by the Constitution. There should be no licensing in the first place, so this bill would legitimize already unconstitutional regulations in place. That's a nice pipe dream, but we're not going to get there anytime soon. |
|
I think that it could be a bad idea because: It could draw lots of attention to CCW and places (like NYS) could enact stricter laws on limiting where you can carry to prevent the "blood in the streets" that will surely follow if non-residents are allowed to carry. I don't think that federal gov could NOT screw this up I don't konw how I feel about this WRT "states' rights".... I think that if there is a time to pass such a law then now could be a good time because: We have had such good results in the last few years at the local level that the above might not be the case in many states/areas. We will obviously have to wait until after 2012 though. Question: Does anyone know how such a law would impact unincorporated US territories? |
| All the "full faith and credit" bluster is fine, until you cloud the issue with facts. States frequently not recognize other states' law, medical, and other professional licenses. Those involve years of training, and still they can't agree on it. With our patchwork of CCW laws, I'm very leery of the federal government handling it in the best interest of law-abiding CCW citizens. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Did not think about that As with a driver's license, you still have to meet the qualification requirements of the state you want to carry in. And the slave states will set the bar very high just as they do in the "may issue" states. A mere peon from Florida like me will never meet the requirements to carry in states where "Big City Thinkers" hold Power. Your wrong. It will depends on how the legislation is written and what is says How can I be "wrong" based on how some imaginary piece of legislation "is written and what it says"? You think Bloomberg, Cuomo, Brown, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, McCarthy, Lautenberg, et al are going to allow legislation to roll over them? Any legislation, if there ever is any, will contain plenty of poison provisions both overt and hidden. I've found that the individuals most supportive of mandated national carry are those who reside in states that won't issue permits to ordinary citizens and are looking to the federal government to fix the political problem that needs to be fixed internally by the residents of their own states. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If my drivers license is good in all the 57 other states, so should my CHL. Granted, we should not have a CHL required to carry a weapon. That is up to you to get your state laws changed then What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? What about it? Last I checked, it did not apply to activities licensed by the several States. Your particular State lawyer certification does not necessarily entitle you to practice law in another State. Nor does your driver's license necessarily entitle you to drive in another State. DLs are pretty much universally reciprocal NOW, but they weren't always so. CHLs will be the same way. |
|
Quoted: What the lord givith, the lord can taketh away. I don't want the federal government involved with my right to bear arms. The law shouldn't be the federal government allowing anything, the law should be the federal government stopping the states from infringing on our pre-existing right to bear arms. |
|
Quoted:
No. I'd be afraid in a few years, we'd end up with a national carry permit, with national eligibility requirements, national testing standards, etc. No thank you. Bullseye. 
But it will never happen. It's always amusing how the same individuals who don't want the federal government to intrude via legislation into local matters want that same federal government to intrude into local matters via legislation on their behalf when it suits them. The only way the federal government can involve itself with any efficacy is for SCOTUS to rule that the right to carry is absolute and the states must all become shall issue and recognize permits issued by any of them. And the odds of that happening are long, even in multiple lifetimes. |
|
Enforcing the Full Faith and Credit caluse is the US govt's JOB. CCP/CHL/CPL should be just like a driver's license - having one in any state should allow you to use it in any other. NATIONAL RECIPROCITY does NOT mean the US govt would be issuing (or involved in the issuance of) permits. It means that all states would have to allow someone with a valid STATE permit to carry in a minimum number of places. It's no different than a state govt prohibiting local governments from regulating firearms. It does NOT impact 'permit-free carry' in states that have that, other than 'permit free' being good only inside the state in question (which is why most 'permit free' states also still have shall-issue - for reciprocity purposes)... The only reason to be opposed to it, is if you're some sort of neoconfederate nutcase who thinks the states should be treated as independent nations. |