User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:20:08 PM EDT
[#1]
I do not want anymore federal regulation.
I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:28:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:37:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:52:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 12:01:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? You guys are thinking about Boxer's "Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011", which is a different bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 12:49:55 AM EDT
[#6]
snip
You guys are thinking about Boxer's "Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011", which is a different bill.
Please educate us then about the new one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 2:06:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. I still can't figure out WHY people line up to get permission to excercise what is ALREADY a GOD GIVEN RIGHT? And then they act all happy about it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 2:44:15 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Actually it depends on which county one resides in in NY. In my county, "I like guns and want to carry them everywhere" is a valid reason. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 2:56:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? In Wayne County, that's about average. My last renewal took 6 months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 3:00:13 AM EDT
[#10]
No thanks. The feds need not be involved in CC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 3:14:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? In Wayne County, that's about average. My last renewal took 6 months. I'm sorry. In the states I've lived in, there are laws that the county only has so much time to get it done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 3:55:31 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Actually it depends on which county one resides in in NY. In my county, "I like guns and want to carry them everywhere" is a valid reason.
Except NYC or any nearby state... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 3:58:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Do not want
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 4:05:28 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: While 822 is not bad now. I fear for the way it could turn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? You guys are thinking about Boxer's "Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011", which is a different bill.  I wish that I could carry in every state but do not want the feds involved. Once the camel gets it nose under the tent you have no clue what it will do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 4:11:29 AM EDT
[#15]
What does the bill actually say?
If it had language allowing the Feds to set CCW standards, then yeah, it'd be a bad bill and should be killed, and would be. But it doesn't. It just mandates reciprocity. That isn't going to happen without something like HR 822. If this was some new, unheralded intrusion of federal power into states rights, I'd be opposed, too. But it isn't. The Feds have already claimed and used this power for a bunch of things we don't want, and we haven't stopped them. They have the power now. Why not have it used for a good cause for once? Killing HR822 is not going to roll back Federal power one little bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 4:18:35 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris I dont understand why people are complaining. Its a bill saying your permit is good all over the country like a drivers license. I hope it passes. Im on the Ny border and its a real pain in the ass. Hell from our old house there was no way to get to it without going through NY ... Thats not a good enough reason to get a westchester permit tho 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 4:24:16 AM EDT
[#17]
This isn't Boxer's bill, but because she's proposed her own version, we know she's ok with this as a compromise if she gets to dictate the standards to the states... or if she thinks she can add those standards later.
The real danger of HR822 isn't what's in it but the fact that short-sighted second amendment activists would support federal laws overriding state CCW law. Once that's upheld in the supreme court (defended by us, paid for by the NRA), they can tack on whatever restrictions and "reasonable standards" for issue that they want. We're already making enormous progress in CCW reciprocity WITHOUT involving the feds. How many states allowed CCW ten years ago, much less recognized licenses from other states? Most shall-issue states have wide if not universal recognition. Allowing the feds in can only hurt us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:12:54 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind. Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW? This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough. Chris Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit? You guys are thinking about Boxer's "Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011", which is a different bill. Above |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:16:08 AM EDT
[#19]
I'm sorry, CCW or not, I do not want the federal government mandating to the states anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:22:30 AM EDT
[#20]
If it would actually HELP gun owners, then it will NEVER get through the Senate, let alone get Signed, and might not even make it through the House.
If it HURTS gun owners, then it may or may not get through the House, and will be rubber stamped by the Senate, and Okenyan. MORE laws, especially at a Federal level are NOT what we need. It's opening a can of worms, that we really shouldn't. Either way, nothing good will come of it, and Fuck the NRA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:26:29 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:41:20 AM EDT
[#22]
I thought we were supposed to be against bills like this? State's rights and all that jazz ....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 5:45:41 AM EDT
[#23]
If this passes, do I show my drivers license in other states? How would it work? We don't issue permits to carry a gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:21:11 AM EDT
[#24]
DO NOT WANT.
Too dangerous to put this in the hands of the fed. They will corrupt it once it's been passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:25:12 AM EDT
[#25]
How about the supreme court rule that the 2nd amendment cannot be infringed, and all local/state/federal laws infringing are illegal?
Liberals got where they want to be via the court, why can't we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:29:39 AM EDT
[#26]
NO MORE FEDERAL GUN LAWS Every little bit they "give" they wind up "taking" more in the long run. Fed.gov is NOT to be trusted on the 2A, all I want from them is a confirmation that "shall NOT be infringed" means what it says. Inviting them into as of yet unexplored areas, is a recipe for a hard, dry, anal penetration by Uncle Sam. I do not want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:32:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. This!!!! KEEP THE FUCKING FEDS OUT OF CCW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:33:32 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
What does the bill actually say? If it had language allowing the Feds to set CCW standards, then yeah, it'd be a bad bill and should be killed, and would be. But it doesn't. It just mandates reciprocity. That isn't going to happen without something like HR 822. If this was some new, unheralded intrusion of federal power into states rights, I'd be opposed, too. But it isn't. The Feds have already claimed and used this power for a bunch of things we don't want, and we haven't stopped them. They have the power now. Why not have it used for a good cause for once? Killing HR822 is not going to roll back Federal power one little bit. If you like it, it is just another reason to hate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:33:45 AM EDT
[#29]
They should just make the CCW a freaken icon on drivers licenses. They should have done it from the get go. State by state is nonsense. I had to take an NRA saftey course, pass an FBI fucking background check. Why shouldnt I be allowed to carry where ever I damn well please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:34:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. This!!!! KEEP THE FUCKING FEDS OUT OF CCW. Who do you think does the background check before you are granted a CCW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:35:28 AM EDT
[#31]
some of ya'll need to take your tin hats off, learn to read or go join brady campain already.
This bill has my support, along with my senator's and congressman's |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:39:48 AM EDT
[#32]
We NEED this!
I reside in communist NJ which is a shall issue state, which means that they have CCW on the books but they SHALL not issue them to anybody that is not a Judge or anything like that. Further more they dont recognize any other states CCW. Passing this act would create a loop hole and allow me to use my already acquired FL CCW license to carry and feel safe n my own my own state (which I feel I need to carry in my home state a lot more then I do in PA ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:39:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. This!!!! KEEP THE FUCKING FEDS OUT OF CCW. Who do you think does the background check before you are granted a CCW
This is NOT the same as the FEDS having the say over you being issued your CCW. Goddamn, are you really that thick? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:40:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Part of me wants reciprocity in all 50 states, the other part of me enjoys saying "FUCK YOU" when I choose not to purchase a good or service that originates in NY, NJ, MD, IL, AL, HI, MA, RI and soon to be CA (if the Governor signs the no OC bill)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:41:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
We NEED this! I reside in communist NJ which is a shall issue state, which means that they have CCW on the books but they SHALL not issue them to anybody that is not a Judge or anything like that. Further more they dont recognize any other states CCW. Passing this act would create a loop hole and allow me to use my already acquired FL CCW license to carry and feel safe n my own my own state (which I feel I need to carry in my home state a lot more then I do in PA ) No. Sorry. Fail. Work within your state to change your laws. It might not be instant, but it is the best way. Actually put some effort forth in restoring your own rights instead of risking everyone else's rights for a quick fix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:48:08 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:04:10 AM EDT
[#37]
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:
HR 822 IH
112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 18, 2011 Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in 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 ‘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. This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS. Continue on to the bill... There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:06:55 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation. I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia. Exactly. I don't want the feds messing with the right to carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:07:13 AM EDT
[#39]
I'm against this. Shouldn't need a permit for a right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:08:01 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it: There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. You shutup with your facts and all... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:10:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it: HR 822 IH
112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 822 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 18, 2011 Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in 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 ‘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. This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS. Continue on to the bill... There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. This is an outrage! How dare you post facts? We're in a good ol' fashioned hyperbolic rantfest here! We can't talk about what it says... we're too worried about what we think it might say to take time to stop and read! You with your big-city facts and thinkin' and stuff... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:12:34 AM EDT
[#42]
This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:22:24 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: No thanks. The feds need not be involved in CC. yUP.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:27:44 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing. Must really boil your blood that our state "lets" people carry without a permit |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:39:47 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it: There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. You shutup with your facts and all... Nobody said there was anything bad in the bill, except establishing that the feds have authority over state CCW. THAT is the dangerous part. If we use our money, time, and energy to defend this in the USSC against CA, NJ, NY, etc., then all we'll have done is establish the constitutionality for when they decide later to add "reasonable" restrictions on how to get a CCW; ie, proof of need, difficult and frequent qualifications, registration of guns to be carried, etc. This bill won't help the poster above who can't get a CCW in his state of NJ, because it only provides for recognition of a CCW from your home state, no FL CCW recognition for you. THIS BILL WILL HELP ALMOST NOBODY! We are making great progress both in issuance and recognition of CCW, no need to get the feds involved. Let me repeat myself: THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN! Any benefit from this bill is transitory and minor. In return we permanently grand authority to the feds. How is that a good thing? For a few of you to gain some small, temporary benefit, you would throw away the freedom that those of us in free states have worked so hard to earn? And you talk about Obama throwing people under the bus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:42:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing. There shouldn't be training requirements to exercise a constitutional right in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:45:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it: There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. You shutup with your facts and all... THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN! Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:46:35 AM EDT
[#48]
I think I'm going to start lobbying my Congressman and Senators to write a bill eliminating national reciprocity for CDLs, and to let those of us in states that don't license people to drive under a certain age refuse to recognize DLs issued by other states to younger folks.
ETA: Given that the feds already regulate interstate commerce, and every other darn thing they want, and the fact that they can, with a simple majority, ban magazines nationwide that hold over 10 rounds (or 6, if they want,) or just go ahead and lean on states that already allow CCW with threats to withhold funding if they don't tighten up standards and go to "may issue if great need demonstrated" or some such, (like the highway money was used for DWI standards and the like,) I think that those who harp about this "giving the feds more power!!!" really need to sit back and think objectively about things. On a side note, I guess I'm really going to have to reconsider my ambivalence towards H.R. 218 (LEOSA,) since, while it does make me a sort of "super-citizen" special class, at least it is in effect and likely to remain so, while any further attempts to broaden carry rights on a nationwide scale seem doomed to defeat, what with the combined opposition from both the antis and many who would normally be considered "pros." (Heck, the opposition from the "pros" is doubly effective in defeating such things, as the antis get the added bonus of saying "Look!! Even the gun nuts don't agree with this insanity!!") |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:48:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it: There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits. You shutup with your facts and all... THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN! Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you. I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 7:49:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I think I'm going to start lobbying my Congressman and Senators to write a bill eliminating national reciprocity for CDLs, and to let those of us in states that don't license people to drive under a certain age refuse to recognize DLs issued by other states to younger folks. Don't forget marraige licenses. Move to a new state? Go go fill out the proper paperwork and pay the man. Walla! now married in your new state. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
