Carry Law that would force states to recognize each others CWPs up for vote [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Carry Law that would force states to recognize each others CWPs up for vote


Manzoli7
11-13-2011, 21:21
Got an NRA voice mail alert saying HR822 is up for vote in congress this week starting tommorrow. It would force each state to let you carry if you have a CWP in your home state. I can see good and bad things about this. Although it would be handy if you are traveling does this not bring up the states rights isue? If this is constitutional could they pass a federal law latter saying states canot isue you a CWp at all? This could be to get the federal governments nose in the tent to regulate CWP.

Am I thinking too much and making it more complicted than it is?

xmanhockey7
11-13-2011, 21:35
This is 100% constitutional! It def deals with interstate commerce even more so than many of the gun control laws dealing with firearms. This is a good bill for firearm owners especially those of us who carry. And you do not need a resident permit to benefit from this. If you live in lets say Illinois where they do not issue permits if you get a FL CCW then you can carry in the other 49 states. With a permit from your home state you could carry every state except Illinois.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7158

This will be on the house floor Tuesday. Email your reps. While it may not pass the Senate we need to AT LEAST try.

Facts sheet about H.R.822
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

OctoberRust
11-14-2011, 08:33
Eh.... I don't see good things coming about this bill if it's passed, in the long run.


....And I'm not talking about "blood in the streets".....

RussP
11-14-2011, 08:41
Eh.... I don't see good things coming about this bill if it's passed, in the long run.


....And I'm not talking about "blood in the streets".....What exactly?

Edited to add link to actual bill... http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr822ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr822ih.pdf and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr822rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr822rh.pdf

John Rambo
11-14-2011, 08:46
This is 100% constitutional! It def deals with interstate commerce even more so than many of the gun control laws dealing with firearms. This is a good bill for firearm owners especially those of us who carry. And you do not need a resident permit to benefit from this. If you live in lets say Illinois where they do not issue permits if you get a FL CCW then you can carry in the other 49 states. With a permit from your home state you could carry every state except Illinois.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7158

This will be on the house floor Tuesday. Email your reps. While it may not pass the Senate we need to AT LEAST try.

Facts sheet about H.R.822
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003


"Interstate commerce?"

Thats a liberal tactic. And its crap. Don't stoop to their level. This has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

I think its yet another encroachment on states' rights based on court rulings that have given states the power to govern their own firearms laws to an extent. I don't support coercing states into this.

RYT 2BER
11-14-2011, 08:51
I guess the only thing I dont understand about the issue, is that, for example.. other Bill of Rights issues wouldnt be regulated at the state level..

For example.. if some state passed a law banning a particular religion or say the freedom of speech, it would be a Constitutional issue that the State (I dont believe) has the right to regulate...

If a State says "You no longer have the right to a trial by your peers if you deal drugs" that would infringe on the Bill of Rights and not be allowed...

Why is this different?

LApm9
11-14-2011, 08:52
Got an NRA voice mail alert saying HR822 is up for vote in congress this week starting tommorrow. It would force each state to let you carry if you have a CWP in your home state. I can see good and bad things about this. Although it would be handy if you are traveling does this not bring up the states rights isue? If this is constitutional could they pass a federal law latter saying states canot isue you a CWp at all? This could be to get the federal governments nose in the tent to regulate CWP.

Am I thinking too much and making it more complicted than it is?

The underlined is what would concern me. I can pretty much avoid "CCW unfriendly" states if I want to, but I can't avoid the Federal Government as easily. I would fear that the feds would then establish "minimum standards".

This is very similar to the marriage issue and (less controversially) drivers licenses. The only thing I would support would be if the legislation established the carrying, while passing through, as an act of interstate commerce, and thus, outside of the state's purview. Allowing you to carry while visiting would be too much of an intrusion into the state's rights.

"It's a trap!!!!"????

Bren
11-14-2011, 09:12
Eh.... I don't see good things coming about this bill if it's passed, in the long run.


....And I'm not talking about "blood in the streets".....

Only a handful of the least free states would benefit. As I live in one of the most free states, gun-wise, it's just potential for the feds to screw me.

jpa
11-14-2011, 09:30
The underlined is what would concern me. I can pretty much avoid "CCW unfriendly" states if I want to, but I can't avoid the Federal Government as easily. I would fear that the feds would then establish "minimum standards".

This is very similar to the marriage issue and (less controversially) drivers licenses. The only thing I would support would be if the legislation established the carrying, while passing through, as an act of interstate commerce, and thus, outside of the state's purview. Allowing you to carry while visiting would be too much of an intrusion into the state's rights.

"It's a trap!!!!"????

That's the point. When you travel to another state, you're engaging in interstate commerce. You pay for gas, you spend money on a hotel, you go sightseeing at the world's largest ball of twine, you go out for dinner and drinks, etc. That is interstate commerce at its simplest form. Just like driving from point a to point b and crossing state lines doesn't require you to have a different driver's license for every state. CCW permits should be recognized by every state just as if they had been issued in that state. There's no federal standard for driver's licensing nor is there a federal agency that issues special driver's licenses to cross state lines. If the system works for Driver's Licenses, why can't it work for CCW permits too?

Gunnut 45/454
11-14-2011, 09:32
Doesn't matter if it passes in the House cause "King" Harry will never let it come to a vote in the Senate! There are 150 House bills that he has refused to let come to a vote! It's dead before it's passed.:steamed: Besides with the Dumocrat majority in the Senate it would never pass there!:faint:

Atomic Punk
11-14-2011, 09:42
i like the look of it on its face, and i would probably vistit people in ca more often if it works as it appears it would. but i expect it would end up making things worse for ccw.

arushus
11-14-2011, 09:49
Im all for it as long as it is very short and sweet and doesnt leave an open door for the fedgov to start legislating firearms anymore than it already has. Like, "Each state must recognize the other states issuance of concealed carry permits." There, one sentence and we're done, no other if's, and's or but's. I realize it cant be that simple, itd be really nice if it were though...

John Rambo
11-14-2011, 09:54
That's the point. When you travel to another state, you're engaging in interstate commerce. You pay for gas, you spend money on a hotel, you go sightseeing at the world's largest ball of twine, you go out for dinner and drinks, etc. That is interstate commerce at its simplest form. Just like driving from point a to point b and crossing state lines doesn't require you to have a different driver's license for every state. CCW permits should be recognized by every state just as if they had been issued in that state. There's no federal standard for driver's licensing nor is there a federal agency that issues special driver's licenses to cross state lines. If the system works for Driver's Licenses, why can't it work for CCW permits too?


I think it was crap when they pulled that with the Heart of Atlanta motel (with good intentions, of course) and I think its crap that they're pulling that now (with equally good intentions, we hope).

rockymtnhorror
11-14-2011, 10:01
As much as I would like to have the ability to carry anywhere, this bill would let the Fed camel get its nose into the tent as far as having a national registry and setting standards. They would no doubt raise the bar pretty high.

It's a noble cause, but it's a bad bill.

F350
11-14-2011, 10:22
"Interstate commerce?"

Thats a liberal tactic. And its crap. Don't stoop to their level. This has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

I think its yet another encroachment on states' rights based on court rulings that have given states the power to govern their own firearms laws to an extent. I don't support coercing states into this.

I agree, I do not see legitimate interstate commerce involvement.....Now Full Faith and Credit IS!!!

A6Gator
11-14-2011, 10:33
Is there a Senate equivalent?

jpa
11-14-2011, 11:18
I agree, I do not see legitimate interstate commerce involvement.....Now Full Faith and Credit IS!!!

travel is a form of commerce.

Glotin
11-14-2011, 12:27
To those of you saying it interferes with States Rights:

Disregarding commercial traffic (Truck Drivers), how is this any different than a driver's license?

IndyGunFreak
11-14-2011, 12:41
To those of you saying it interferes with States Rights:

Disregarding commercial traffic (Truck Drivers), how is this any different than a driver's license?

That's a good point... (even though I don't like this bill)....

However, think of it this way... .Here in Indiana, you can turn left on red, only if you are going from a One Way street onto another One Way street, and it is not posted "No Turn on Red"...

Now, lets say I go to New York City, I do this and I'll probably just get a ticket (remember, to my knowledge, this bill makes no distinction between May Issue and Shall Issue states). I go to NY, and I accidentally get lost and end up in NYC (where firearm possession is illegal without special permits)... I end up in jail facing serious felony charges.

This law is "OK", but remember, it doesn't just give you a pass to carry when you're traveling through states not named Illinois... You still need to be very familiar with their laws, etc..

Also, I wonder if any "May Issue" states, would become "No Issue" states, due to this law? Remember, some states are May issue, despite the fact they very very rarely issue permits (NJ, Mass, etc.)

IGF

cowboy1964
11-14-2011, 12:44
Got an NRA voice mail alert saying HR822 is up for vote in congress this week starting tommorrow. It would force each state to let you carry if you have a CWP in your home state. I can see good and bad things about this. Although it would be handy if you are traveling does this not bring up the states rights isue? If this is constitutional could they pass a federal law latter saying states canot isue you a CWp at all? This could be to get the federal governments nose in the tent to regulate CWP.

Am I thinking too much and making it more complicted than it is?

Yes you are making too much out of it, as are most of the people against it. Read the NRA's stance on this bill. It will answer your questions.

JK-linux
11-14-2011, 13:15
I have no interest or need for the Federal Government to have anything more to do with firearms than it already does, and as such I would not support this bill. Fedgov has bigger fish to fry than whether or not I can go heeled while traveling. Invoking Commerce is a hackneyed argument that even it's advocates roll their eyes at. Don't give it more unintended power than it has. Doing nothing other than starring straight into the sun is probably "engaging in commerce" if you twist things around enough, and throw enough money and lawyers at it.

If you help set a precident that Fedgov has anything to do with this at all, then you help build the case and lend veracity to the public perception that Fedgov can and should set common and reasonable regulations and restrictions at some point in the future. Sure, they can try to restrict things without this particular bill. But why make it easier, more socially accepted and less blatantly obvious when it happens? I'd rather see them try to pass a big, ugly, mean sounding ban, than simply hone, improve and clarify and existing law that we said we wanted.

Toorop
11-14-2011, 14:14
We need to call and tell our legislators to vote against this. We also need to ask them to repeal LEOSA and FOPA as these laws are all unconstitutional. States rights are more important.

Toorop
11-14-2011, 14:16
To those of you saying it interferes with States Rights:

Disregarding commercial traffic (Truck Drivers), how is this any different than a driver's license?
That was a voluntary agreement between states.

Bogey
11-14-2011, 14:25
I vote that we revoke any Federal laws concerning the 2nd amendment. Do away with ANY Federal regulation. Let the 2nd stand where it is.

Then let the States do what they will.

HexHead
11-14-2011, 14:43
Doesn't matter if it passes in the House cause "King" Harry will never let it come to a vote in the Senate! There are 150 House bills that he has refused to let come to a vote! It's dead before it's passed.:steamed: Besides with the Dumocrat majority in the Senate it would never pass there!:faint:

Last time it only failed by two votes to get the filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. Don't forget Reid has an "A" rating from the NRA.

IndyGunFreak
11-14-2011, 16:08
Last time it only failed by two votes to get the filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. Don't forget Reid has an "A" rating from the NRA.

Reid having an "A" Rating is surprising, given his liberal views, but beyond that... Liberals are not going to send this bill to Obama, so they don't have to put him on the spot for Gun Control. He's got an uphill battle this next election anyway, they don't want him having to answer on why he vetoed "pro gun" legislation.

Now if Osama is elected to a second term (which I think is a very remote possibility).... WATCH OUT!

IGF

redbaron007
11-15-2011, 07:57
It'll pass the House, has plenty of votes from both sides, from what I've heard. However, the Senate is a different issue. As I have commented before, it may pass the Senate (if it is brought to a vote) but it is doubtful it will be veto proof. In the end, if it reaches King Obama's desk as a single bill, I don't see him signing it.

If he does sign it, what does that tell you? My impression would be it will be modified when he or another democrat president, with at least one controlling House or Senate, gets into the President's office. This is the concern. Once the moose gets its nose in the tent, watch out. JMHO!!

I do not support this legislation.


:wavey:

red

xmanhockey7
11-15-2011, 10:27
Being an election year Obama could sign this bill in an attempt to appeal to gun owners.

HexHead
11-15-2011, 10:35
Being an election year Obama could sign this bill in an attempt to appeal to gun owners.

Nobody thought he'd sign the bill allowing carry in National Parks either.

Maybe this will get slid into a bill he won't veto? The National Parks bill was slipped into the credit card reform bill he wanted.

HexHead
11-15-2011, 10:37
States don't have rights, they have powers.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

"State's rights" gets bandied about as much as "separation of church and state", which isn't in the Constitution either. Some of you guys really need to loosen your tin foil.

cowboy1964
11-15-2011, 11:36
Once the moose gets its nose in the tent, watch out. JMHO!!

I really don't understand why people have this position. How did we get to the point where even pro-gun legislation is bad? This bill has nothing to do with possible future anti-gun legislation, which could happen irrespective of this particular bill. Someone else mentioned CCW in national parks. I'm sure the same people where against that too, right?

I've said it 10 times before and I'll say it again: why is the NRA for this bill? They all short-sighted idiots?

Travclem
11-15-2011, 11:40
I agree that all states should recognize eachother's CHLs but I don't believe it is the fed's job to say so. The less the feds have their hand in, the better.

LongGoneDays
11-15-2011, 12:19
MY right to defend myself > a state's right to misinterpret the constitution.

Maine1
11-15-2011, 13:00
I have an idea...how about we eliminate all 24,000 gun laws? that would do the same thing and not continue the BS infringements that exist now.
That way we could act just like grown up free people for a change..how about that?
I predict NO blood in the streets..

vafish
11-15-2011, 15:03
Doesn't matter if it passes in the House cause "King" Harry will never let it come to a vote in the Senate! There are 150 House bills that he has refused to let come to a vote! It's dead before it's passed.:steamed: Besides with the Dumocrat majority in the Senate it would never pass there!:faint:


There are quite a few pro gun democrats.

Also if va's recent elections are any indication many democrats are distancing themselves from Obama.

And Obama has signed every pro gun bill that has crossed his desk. Obama has signed mote pro gun legislation and less anti gun legislation then a couple of supposedly pro gum republican presidents.

I think this bill actually has a shot at passing.

Toorop
11-16-2011, 01:22
There are quite a few pro gun democrats.

Also if va's recent elections are any indication many democrats are distancing themselves from Obama.

And Obama has signed every pro gun bill that has crossed his desk. Obama has signed mote pro gun legislation and less anti gun legislation then a couple of supposedly pro gum republican presidents.

I think this bill actually has a shot at passing.

I agree. Obama has done more to expand gun rights then the last 3 GOP presidents. He might not like it but it doesn't seem like gun control is a major issue these days.

xmanhockey7
11-16-2011, 02:05
I agree. Obama has done more to expand gun rights then the last 3 GOP presidents. He might not like it but it doesn't seem like gun control is a major issue these days.

Democrats are afraid of it. After they got voted out for their stupid gun control laws during the Clinton admin they are very afraid.

Toorop
11-16-2011, 02:44
Democrats are afraid of it. After they got voted out for their stupid gun control laws during the Clinton admin they are very afraid.
I'm not sure about that. Bush said he would gladly sign another AWB. However the 3 presidents before George W. Bush all signed gun control acts. And two of them were Republicans. Reagan is responsible for the Mulford Act in California as well as the reason I cannot purchase a machine gun. And I believe George H. Bush Sr. is responsible for the import ban. Neither of those has a sunset unlike the Clinton AWB which did.

It's not really about parties but individuals and their own politics.

TangoFoxtrot
11-16-2011, 07:29
Got an NRA voice mail alert saying HR822 is up for vote in congress this week starting tommorrow. It would force each state to let you carry if you have a CWP in your home state. I can see good and bad things about this. Although it would be handy if you are traveling does this not bring up the states rights isue? If this is constitutional could they pass a federal law latter saying states canot isue you a CWp at all? This could be to get the federal governments nose in the tent to regulate CWP.

Am I thinking too much and making it more complicted than it is?

I hope folks don't get their hopes up, because this will never pass! NEVER. States like Mass, Maryland, New York and New Jersey to name a few will fight this tooth and nail. They will not let the rights / authority of the state be infringed.

hamster
11-16-2011, 08:05
I agree that all states should recognize eachother's CHLs but I don't believe it is the fed's job to say so. The less the feds have their hand in, the better.

Exactly, there is nothing stopping the states from doing this on their own.

Personally I'm for less government on every issue, not just when it suits me.

RYT 2BER
11-16-2011, 08:51
I had made an earlier post that nobody replied to, however I still question it.. looking for some insight..

Again, States (from what I gather) dont have the ability to limit the Bill of Rights.. For example, New Jersey cant tell you that they have abolished "free speech", and Idaho cannot say they have "banned Buddhists from going to public school" as these are inalienable rights set fourth in the BOR.

Why would the 2nd Amendment be allowed to be stymied at the pleaure of any State? Im not sure why this isnt a Federal issue...?

JK-linux
11-16-2011, 09:32
I had made an earlier post that nobody replied to, however I still question it.. looking for some insight..

Again, States (from what I gather) dont have the ability to limit the Bill of Rights.. For example, New Jersey cant tell you that they have abolished "free speech", and Idaho cannot say they have "banned Buddhists from going to public school" as these are inalienable rights set fourth in the BOR.

Why would the 2nd Amendment be allowed to be stymied at the pleaure of any State? Im not sure why this isnt a Federal issue...?

Lawyers incrementally chipping away with reasonable and common sense rulings to restrict and regulate it. Over time, and in small doses, it seems acceptable.

stricky
11-16-2011, 11:30
The vote this week was just to consider and debate the bill.

As someone that lives where I can find myself in 3 different states within minutes I support it.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr822rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr822rh.pdf

blk69stang
11-16-2011, 11:58
To the OP:

Allow me to quote the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


This is why your driver's license and vehicle registration are valid in all 50 states. We really shouldn't NEED a law to make all states recognize each others CWP, as the constitution clearly spells out that each state SHOULD already recognize it, but I guess some people don't follow the Const. anymore, so you need a federal law in plain language to make it absolutely crystal clear to some people how things are supposed to work.

It DOES NOT give the feds an "in" to later pass a ban on concealed carry, because the law is merely forcing states to recognize other states LICENSING. It does not grant or deny any rights, it is dealing solely with licensing. The only way such a law could be used to ban ccw of any kind would be to pass a law saying that each state CANNOT honor the CWP from any other state. That's about as extreme an example of how this could be stretched.

In short:

YES, YOU'RE OVER-THINKING IT!!! Support this legislation!

TexasFats
11-16-2011, 13:22
Nobody thought he'd sign the bill allowing carry in National Parks either.

Maybe this will get slid into a bill he won't veto? The National Parks bill was slipped into the credit card reform bill he wanted.

That bill was attached to an appropriations bill that he couldn't afford to veto, IIRC. If it had come to him as a free-standing bill, then he would have vetoed it in a heartbeat in all liklihood.

James Dean
11-16-2011, 16:25
Nobody thought he'd sign the bill allowing carry in National Parks either.

Maybe this will get slid into a bill he won't veto? The National Parks bill was slipped into the credit card reform bill he wanted.
Thats how politics works

xmanhockey7
11-16-2011, 16:35
Passed the house. Now moving onto the senate.

mrsurfboard
11-16-2011, 17:07
Passed the house. Now moving onto the senate.

As of now, there is no similar bill in the Senate.

PotentPotables
11-16-2011, 19:38
Just like driving from point a to point b and crossing state lines doesn't require you to have a different driver's license for every state. CCW permits should be recognized by every state just as if they had been issued in that state. There's no federal standard for driver's licensing nor is there a federal agency that issues special driver's licenses to cross state lines. If the system works for Driver's Licenses, why can't it work for CCW permits too?

Disregarding commercial traffic (Truck Drivers), how is this any different than a driver's license?

Regarding the comparison to driver's licenses: As Toorop correctly pointed out, there is no federal law or legislation requiring that individual states recognize the driver's licenses of any other state. Instead, the federal government will withhold federal highway funds (and possibly other federal money) from any state that does not do so. While the federal government has effectively coerced the states into compliance, it has not enacted legislation to achieve this end, and I would imagine that this is because it has been previously recognized that this would be outside the authority of the federal government.

I would personally benefit from the passage of the proposed bill, and it would make many aspects of inter-state travel much simpler and efficient for everyone involved. However, I oppose this bill because I believe we need to play by the same rules that we champion when arguing against federal intrusion into state matters when the policy is not in our favor.

A simple test for me when considering these types of issues is to consider the converse at the same level of power. For example, if a person felt inclined to support a federal bill prohibiting gay marriage, the test question would be: "would I regard this as an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government if it were forcing all states to recognize and conduct such marriages?" In the case at hand, my question was: "what would I think about the limits on the federal government if the 'other side' cited driver's licenses or the commerce clause in order to prohibit any state from recognizing the handgun license of any other state?"

I think we need to have integrity and to be honest with ourselves when considering any new issue. If we claim to support unwavering principles such as "states' rights" and "a limited federal government," we need to be prepared to make the tough decisions and sacrifices that go along with such ideals.

huggytree
11-16-2011, 20:10
i am against the bill for States Rights issue reasons....the individual states are handling it already themselves...most recognize 1/2 the country

id rather have the Feds. stay out of all Gun Issues..

if they can give you something they can also take it away.....better they stay out of it completely.

in the future guns could be out of favor and they could say no state can issue CCW's

if they can make a State recogize another States CCW they can also say CCW's are illegal to the States in the future

Manofprint
11-16-2011, 20:16
i am against the bill for States Rights issue reasons....the individual states are handling it already themselves...most recognize 1/2 the country

id rather have the Feds. stay out of all Gun Issues..

if they can give you something they can also take it away.....better they stay out of it completely.

in the future guns could be out of favor and they could say no state can issue CCW's

if they can make a State recogize another States CCW they can also say CCW's are illegal to the States in the future

This ^^^^
If it not broke should we really try and fix it ?

xmanhockey7
11-16-2011, 22:05
This ^^^^
If it not broke should we really try and fix it ?

It is broke though....I can carry concealed in Indiana but if I cross an invisible line over to Ohio I am no longer allowed to carry concealed. Why? Am I no longer responsible enough to carry? Especially while I'm in a fellow shall issue state.

RobG
11-17-2011, 06:27
I just received an email from the NRA the bill has passed...the NRA has been backing this bill. It's like being able to use your state issued DL for driving your vehicle to other states, now anyone with a CHL has the right to carry when traveling and must adhere to the state laws for CC that they are in.

Each state still makes their own laws for CC, not the federal government.

Looks like a good thing to me...it's the same thing that applies to state issued DLs. :wavey:

Unistat
11-17-2011, 07:14
Just an FYI, the bill has only passed the House, not the Senate (unlikely), nor has it gone to the President to be signed (unlikely-er).

hamster
11-17-2011, 07:26
Here is something I don't understand. Would this mean that a state like illinois would be forced to recognize my Ohio CCW license and actually let me carry?

If not, what is the point?
If so, why do we need the feds to do this. Why not just get the states together. Many states have huge multi-state reciprocity deals already.

EAJuggalo
11-17-2011, 08:10
Hamster, Illinois, no. But Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii and California yes. The point as xman posted earlier in the thread is that if that state allows it's residents to carry then it has to allow out of state residents to carry. Why am I treated differently in some states because my pieces of paper say MN and PA on them rather than FL or CO.

I think the DL comparison is a little weak because of the interstate compacts. But how about marriage licenses or judicial proceedings? I got married in WI but am certainly considered married in MN and by the fed gov.

hamster
11-17-2011, 09:56
Hamster, Illinois, no. But Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii and California yes. The point as xman posted earlier in the thread is that if that state allows it's residents to carry then it has to allow out of state residents to carry. Why am I treated differently in some states because my pieces of paper say MN and PA on them rather than FL or CO.

I think the DL comparison is a little weak because of the interstate compacts. But how about marriage licenses or judicial proceedings? I got married in WI but am certainly considered married in MN and by the fed gov.

It will still be much too complicated. NJ for example with it's prohibition on hollow points etc.

I'm just not sure that this is the best use of NRA resources at this time. I'd much rather see them take on IL in a meaningful way and/or those states that are still May issue.

xmanhockey7
11-17-2011, 11:16
It will still be much too complicated. NJ for example with it's prohibition on hollow points etc.

I'm just not sure that this is the best use of NRA resources at this time. I'd much rather see them take on IL in a meaningful way and/or those states that are still May issue.

Well they've filed a lawsuit against Illinois in conjunction with Illinois pro gun groups. They're taking on multiple things and I love it!

ICARRY2
11-17-2011, 19:05
National reciprocity will not lead to the feds setting the standards for the issuance of a state ccw permit or superseding any state to state reciprocal agreement or recognition statute.

IndyGunFreak
11-17-2011, 19:57
Looks like a good thing to me...it's the same thing that applies to state issued DLs. :wavey:

When are people going to stop using the Drivers License analogy? That is a horrible analogy for this horrid bill. As has been pointed out, this bill is NOTHING like Drivers License reciprocity, because that is still all handled at the state level.

Let the states handle this (just like they do w/ Drivers Licenses)

kensteele
11-17-2011, 21:19
I just love all this "state" ass kissing going on until the "state" tries to give you the shaft then you go crying to the Federal government asking for them to "enforce" the Constitution. lol

Toorop
11-17-2011, 21:44
I just love all this "state" ass kissing going on until the "state" tries to give you the shaft then you go crying to the Federal government asking for them to "enforce" the Constitution. lol

Agree. Sorry but the states should have their rights and powers to control some things. And carrying is one of those things.

mikegun
11-18-2011, 00:15
when does it go to the senate???

EAJuggalo
11-18-2011, 06:07
It will still be much too complicated. NJ for example with it's prohibition on hollow points etc.

I'm just not sure that this is the best use of NRA resources at this time. I'd much rather see them take on IL in a meaningful way and/or those states that are still May issue.

The NJ issue will not be addressed, other than saying you better know the laws of those states you're carrying in/through.

The beauty of the wording of the bill is that it is going to force those states/cities that have permitting processes but never use them to change their laws. I don't see 9 million New Yorkers being happy with the City if visitors can carry but they can't. Same with Californians, Hawaiians and any others under restrictive may issue laws.

Gunnut 45/454
11-18-2011, 10:42
Because of these admendment I'm totally aginst this! The Dumocrats as usual have gutted it! National Data base for all carry permits?, Can't carry in a state that requires live fire class if yours doesn't?:steamed:



Amendment No. 1由ep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

Amendment No. 2由ep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 3由ep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

Amendment No. 4由ep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 5由ep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by 菟reserving state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6由ep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to 殿ny law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.鋳

Amendment No. 7由ep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

Amendment No. 8由ep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state痴 law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9由ep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state痴 carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Amendment No. 10由ep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.


.

EAJuggalo
11-18-2011, 11:18
Gunnut, the only one of those to pass with the bill in number 10 which I'm actually for.
Here is the bill that passed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c112RGBsQz::

RYT 2BER
11-18-2011, 11:44
I just love all this "state" ass kissing going on until the "state" tries to give you the shaft then you go crying to the Federal government asking for them to "enforce" the Constitution. lol

Agree. Sorry but the states should have their rights and powers to control some things. And carrying is one of those things.

I agree with kensteele here..

I keep asking the same question and I get the same general responses...which are basically nothing.. Why do people think States have the right to regulate the BOR? I just dont see that virtually anywhere else..

In other words, States cannot infringe on your right to free speech, or your right to a trial,etc... Why is it everyone believes States are ok in limiting the basic BOR like the 2nd Amendment?

Can someone tell me where xyz state for example limits the 1st Amendment that holds up in a legal environment?

HarleyGuy
11-18-2011, 12:12
I can understand (but not support)some of these proposed amendments but #8 is absurd and would be a nightmare to implement and control.

dreis454
11-18-2011, 12:18
Only a handful of the least free states would benefit. As I live in one of the most free states, gun-wise, it's just potential for the feds to screw me.

It not supposed to benefit the STATE,its for the PEOPLE! I live on the CT/Mass line (100yds on CT side)

I can not carry if i will have any chance of crossing the line as i often do for gas,shopping & soforth.

TexasFats
11-18-2011, 12:18
Those amendments to the bill are put there as "poison pills" to kill the legislation. Wait until it gets to the Senate and they vote to attach Sen. Boxer's S 176 to it. That would be the deal-killer of all deal-killers. And, I'll bet that Harry and the Dem. leadership won't let it come up for a vote in the Senate without something like that.

Glock411
11-18-2011, 12:23
If it makes it to the presidents desk, President OBummer will never sign it.

dreis454
11-18-2011, 12:50
It is broke though....I can carry concealed in Indiana but if I cross an invisible line over to Ohio I am no longer allowed to carry concealed. Why? Am I no longer responsible enough to carry? Especially while I'm in a fellow shall issue state.

This is the whole point of the bill.....I hope it passes.

nastytrigger
11-18-2011, 13:16
This is the whole point of the bill.....I hope it passes.

Passed house. Needed 290 to be 2/3rds to overrule Obama's veto (a given). I think it passed with 272 through house. Then, of course, it needs to get through Senate... Would love for it to pass.

kensteele
11-18-2011, 16:06
i stand corrected having mentioned in the past that obama has yet to veto; he has in fact done so twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

this is interesting and might have some relevance: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808

huggytree
11-18-2011, 18:11
I just received an email from the NRA the bill has passed...the NRA has been backing this bill. It's like being able to use your state issued DL for driving your vehicle to other states, now anyone with a CHL has the right to carry when traveling and must adhere to the state laws for CC that they are in.

Each state still makes their own laws for CC, not the federal government.

Looks like a good thing to me...it's the same thing that applies to state issued DLs. :wavey:

having the Feds start to dictate CCW is a good thing??? name 1 thing the feds do thats ends up being a good thing? your not looking 20 years from now...your looking at today....once the feds get their hands on it THEY will Dictate CCW issues....how many rounds you can carry, gun size, where you can and cant carry it.....this opens a door....OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY THAT IS THE FEDERAL GOV....they do NOTHING Correct!!! They will screw this up in the future

Acujeff
11-18-2011, 20:46
U.S. House of Representatives Adopts Right-to-Carry Reciprocity—
All Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated!
Friday, November 18, 2011

On Wednesday, Nov. 16, the ongoing effort to fully vindicate the fundamental, individual right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense took a major step forward with House passage of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.” The bill, sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), which has 245 cosponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

Several amendments were offered to undermine the bill’s protections. Every one of these amendments was soundly defeated by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and included:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-Texas) amendment to establish a national database of permit holders (defeated 284-139);

Rep. Jackson Lee’s amendment to require permit holders to notify law enforcement officials in other states of their intention to carry a firearm in those states (defeated 299-123);

Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-Tenn.) amendment to exclude permit holders under 21 years of age (defeated 276-150);

Rep. Alcee Hastings’ (D-Fla.) amendment, intended to exclude permit holders whose states do not require permit applicants to apply in person (defeated 277-148);

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) amendment to apply the bill only to states in which the state legislature votes to accept it (defeated 274-147);

Rep. Rob Woodall’s (R-Ga.) amendment to allow states to create their own agreements which would exempt them from the bill (defeated 283-140);

Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) amendment to apply the bill only to permit holders who were required to participate in a live-fire exercise to be eligible for their permits (defeated 281-144);

and,
Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-R.I.) amendment to create a patchwork of recognition (and resistance) by applying the bill only between states where the attorneys general, state police chiefs, and secretaries of state have affirmed that their states’ carry laws are similar (defeated 277-146).

Story at:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7178

kensteele
11-18-2011, 21:31
having the Feds start to dictate CCW is a good thing??? name 1 thing the feds do thats ends up being a good thing? your not looking 20 years from now...your looking at today....once the feds get their hands on it THEY will Dictate CCW issues....how many rounds you can carry, gun size, where you can and cant carry it.....this opens a door....OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY THAT IS THE FEDERAL GOV....they do NOTHING Correct!!! They will screw this up in the future

C'mon please stop. Many people are immune to this kind of nonsense talk, your vision of the future is no better than anyone else's vision of the futurel this isn't a prediction, this is a dream....or more like your own personal nightmare.

If the Fed government wants to limit the number of rounds you can carry, they create and submit the "Federal Government CCW Official Round Limits" bill, not a simple reciprocity bill. If you are a fan of history, show me where this "new strategy" of passing a harmless bill that eventually leads to more Fed powers has been used successfully.

DrtyHarry
11-18-2011, 21:37
I have a question I'm hoping you guys can help answer for me. I live in Vermont. Up here, we have never heard of such a thing called a carry permit. The state does not issue them....in order to carry, you simply need an ID card or a driver's license. I read the legislation and it says, "it requires the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards." So, when I go to visit family down in NY or NJ, will I be allowed to carry in those and other states?? Will I be allowed to carry as many rounds as I want, or will I have to be limited to say 10 rounds, as NY law dictates? What about ammo? Can I carry any kind of ammo that I want? Thanks for the help guys, I will feel so much safer knowing I can legally carry when taking the wife and kids to surrounding states!



Harry

xmanhockey7
11-18-2011, 21:53
I have a question I'm hoping you guys can help answer for me. I live in Vermont. Up here, we have never heard of such a thing called a carry permit. The state does not issue them....in order to carry, you simply need an ID card or a driver's license. I read the legislation and it says, "it requires the states to recognize each others carry permits, just as they recognize drivers licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards." So, when I go to visit family down in NY or NJ, will I be allowed to carry in those and other states?? Will I be allowed to carry as many rounds as I want, or will I have to be limited to say 10 rounds, as NY law dictates? What about ammo? Can I carry any kind of ammo that I want? Thanks for the help guys, I will feel so much safer knowing I can legally carry when taking the wife and kids to surrounding states!



Harry
To carry under this act you will need a license to carry (everything I'm going to say will assume the bill has passed and is in effect). Any license will work, whether it is from Maine, Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, doesn't matter. If you get a license you will be allowed to carry in that state as long as you follow the conditions of someone with an unrestricted permit from that state. So if permit holders in New York are only allowed to carry a 10 round mag you must also abide by that law. If permit holders cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol you may not either. If the state bans the carry of hallow point ammo by someone licensed then you are not allowed to carry hallow point ammo. Basically whatever laws their permit holders must abide by you must as well.

PAGunner
11-18-2011, 22:07
C'mon please stop. Many people are immune to this kind of nonsense talk, your vision of the future is no better than anyone else's vision of the futurel this isn't a prediction, this is a dream....or more like your own personal nightmare.

If the Fed government wants to limit the number of rounds you can carry, they create and submit the "Federal Government CCW Official Round Limits" bill, not a simple reciprocity bill. If you are a fan of history, show me where this "new strategy" of passing a harmless bill that eventually leads to more Fed powers has been used successfully.

Exactly, I'm not understanding why 2a advocates on this forum and others are so paranoid about this bill. Nothing is stopping the feds from attempting legislation to regulate and restrict down the road, regardless of this bill.

DrtyHarry
11-18-2011, 22:16
To carry under this act you will need a license to carry (everything I'm going to say will assume the bill has passed and is in effect). Any license will work, whether it is from Maine, Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, doesn't matter. If you get a license you will be allowed to carry in that state as long as you follow the conditions of someone with an unrestricted permit from that state. So if permit holders in New York are only allowed to carry a 10 round mag you must also abide by that law. If permit holders cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol you may not either. If the state bans the carry of hallow point ammo by someone licensed then you are not allowed to carry hallow point ammo. Basically whatever laws their permit holders must abide by you must as well.

Thanks for your reply. Here in Vermont though, my license to carry falls under my ID card or driver's license, does that fall under "any license" as you said?. If this passes, shouldn't other states recognize this? Or do I have to go to Florida and pick one up??

I find it silly that if I'm going to drive cross country that I will need a list of states that tell me how many rounds I can carry and what kind of ammo....so I'll have to have different mags and ammo on me? If I go to NY, I can have 10...if I go to NJ, I can carry 15. So when I cross state lines, I have to change mags and ammo? Ugh...:dunno:


Harry

EAJuggalo
11-18-2011, 22:42
having the Feds start to dictate CCW is a good thing??? name 1 thing the feds do thats ends up being a good thing? your not looking 20 years from now...your looking at today....once the feds get their hands on it THEY will Dictate CCW issues....how many rounds you can carry, gun size, where you can and cant carry it.....this opens a door....OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY THAT IS THE FEDERAL GOV....they do NOTHING Correct!!! They will screw this up in the future

Considering your state has had concealed carry for all of two weeks, how do you have any idea what will be done if this bill passes? If certain legislators in Madison had thought the same thing you still wouldn't have any carry law. What do you suggest to get nationwide recognition? How are we going to get anything positive done if we are too scared to push for anything? I think you need to stay quiet for a while on serious issues until you learn what it is that is being talked about. Go back to your noob questions and let the grown ups discuss this.

DrtyHarry, You may have to carry two different mags and two different boxes of ammo but that sure beats what we have now. I'll invest in some ten round mags and EMFJ if I can carry in NYC and NJ.

xmanhockey7
11-18-2011, 22:49
Thanks for your reply. Here in Vermont though, my license to carry falls under my ID card or driver's license, does that fall under "any license" as you said?. If this passes, shouldn't other states recognize this? Or do I have to go to Florida and pick one up??

I find it silly that if I'm going to drive cross country that I will need a list of states that tell me how many rounds I can carry and what kind of ammo....so I'll have to have different mags and ammo on me? If I go to NY, I can have 10...if I go to NJ, I can carry 15. So when I cross state lines, I have to change mags and ammo? Ugh...:dunno:


Harry
Your drivers license is not a license to carry a gun, it's a license to drive. The purpose of having it while carrying is so they can I.D. you if necessary. And no you do not need to go to FL. They do it through the mail but I'd suggest getting it from a different state. New Hampshire wouldn't be bad.....
http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp260.pdf $100 for four years. No training or fingerprinting required. OR IF YOU ARE A VERMONT RESIDENT:
2)
A letter from your local police department, verifying that the state you reside in does not require a license to carry concealed, and that, to the best of the departments knowledge:
a) You have never been denied a license to carry,
b) You have never been convicted of a felony which has not been Annulled,
c) You are not a user of controlled drugs or narcotics without orders from a physician,
d) You have not been treated for mental illness, emotional problems, or confined to a mental health facility,
e) You have no domestic violence petitions that would prevent possession of weapons under federal statute,
and
f) In any court of a misdemeanor of domestic violence.

From what I can tell as far as non-resident permits go the only state the you could get from that doesn't require training is New Hampshire. http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NonResidentPermits.pdf This is all assuming this bill passes. If it does not pass and you wish to have good reciprocity NH isn't bad and since it's a boarder state prob wouldn't be a bad idea to get. Utah and Florida have the most coverage though. You must get training for them and fingerprints and all that. The entire process can be done though the mail though. I do know Utah has a requirement to see a permit from your resident state to get their non-resident but I think VT is exempt because they don't issue permits.

DrtyHarry
11-18-2011, 22:52
DrtyHarry, You may have to carry two different mags and two different boxes of ammo but that sure beats what we have now. I'll invest in some ten round mags and EMFJ if I can carry in NYC and NJ.

I would have no problem what so ever doing that. I'm just unclear that if the bill passes, will other states honor and recognize my Vermont driver's license as a carry permit....like in my home state? It's unclear....



Harry

EAJuggalo
11-18-2011, 22:57
NO, you would have to get a non-res from another state or convince the state legislative body to issue permits even though they aren't needed like AZ and AK.

The issue is that your state doesn't issue permits, it only requires an ID to carry.

Xman is correct, UT permits require those whose states issue permits to have their home state permits but IL, VT and DC are exempt from that requirement.

DrtyHarry
11-18-2011, 23:06
Your drivers license is not a license to carry a gun, it's a license to drive.

Thanks for your reply. In order for me to purchase a firearm from a dealer, I need to show my drivers license. I also need to have a driver's license in order to carry. I'll look into NH, thanks for the info on that.

IMHO, I feel that if this bill passes, all I should need is my ID from my state, since we don't issue carry permits up here. I shouldn't have to go to another state and get a permit from them. That, or VT should start to issue carry permits....similar to an endorsement on your driver's license, like a motorcycle or something similar. Just pay a small fee at the DMV for the endorsement....no training or classes necessary. (but recommended if you need the training) Just a thought...




Harry

xmanhockey7
11-19-2011, 00:50
Thanks for your reply. In order for me to purchase a firearm from a dealer, I need to show my drivers license. I also need to have a driver's license in order to carry. I'll look into NH, thanks for the info on that.

IMHO, I feel that if this bill passes, all I should need is my ID from my state, since we don't issue carry permits up here. I shouldn't have to go to another state and get a permit from them. That, or VT should start to issue carry permits....similar to an endorsement on your driver's license, like a motorcycle or something similar. Just pay a small fee at the DMV for the endorsement....no training or classes necessary. (but recommended if you need the training) Just a thought...




Harry

IMHO nobody should need to get any type of permit and especially not have to pay any fee. One of the ideas behind this bill was that someone from VT like you could benefit from it by getting a permit from any other state. Look at it this way. You already cannot go carry (concealed) in any other states besides AZ and AK. To be able to carry in other states you would need to get a permit. This bill would allow you to carry in every state except Illinois because they don't have concealed carry.

DB1985
11-19-2011, 04:43
While I like what the NRA is shooting for with this bill, honestly I'm against it. I mean wouldn't this be trampling on state's rights? If people want to concealed carry their firearms in those radical states such as IL, NJ, NY, and CA then vote all the bastards out at the state level in the states that allow it.

EAJuggalo
11-19-2011, 05:41
And what about those of us who don't live in those states? We should all have to give up our right to the most effective means of self defense because we cross over an invisible line? Sometimes the states have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance.

happyguy
11-19-2011, 07:31
As long as we have a pro-gun congress we need to get as much as we can out of them.

They have already proven they can take away anything they want whenever it suits them.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

RYT 2BER
11-19-2011, 09:04
While I like what the NRA is shooting for with this bill, honestly I'm against it. I mean wouldn't this be trampling on state's rights? If people want to concealed carry their firearms in those radical states such as IL, NJ, NY, and CA then vote all the bastards out at the state level in the states that allow it.

I'll make my comment for the 3 or 4 the time in this thread.. what makes you all think that states should have the right to impede on a citizens inalienable rights under the cotus?! I do not think that was the purpose of the 10th amendment .. state sovereignty isn't supposed to trump basic constitutional rights!

Misty02
11-19-2011, 10:24
The bill, as is, appears to be a good one. My concern, from the beginning, has been that it can potentially be used as a vehicle to attain other goals. The suggested amendments proposed, although not incorporated, may illustrate the transformation a bill like this can have over time.

http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr822 (http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr822)

Amendment No. 2由ep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 4由ep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 6由ep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to 殿ny law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.鋳

Amendment No. 8由ep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state痴 law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9由ep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state痴 carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Can you really not foresee the potential this has to be a vehicle to create restrictions or enhance requirements down the line? At the very least, it has the potential of being meaningless if it passes with something similar to Amendment No 2 incorporated.

I don稚 need a crystal ball or too big of an imagination to see what some of the possible unintended consequences can be; some have already been suggested above, there will be others. I expect the "duty to inform" to be a suggested Amendment shortly as well.

Personally, I prefer to leave things at state level and allow states to negotiate their reciprocity with other states. If it passes, I pray those in favor are right and I'm wrong.

.

EAJuggalo
11-19-2011, 11:53
I agree with you that the amendments are horrible but that kind of stuff gets voted on for almost all major bills. You'll notice only one of the proposed amendments was adopted. Even if some of them end up in the bill I'll take it if it means I can carry when I'm in NY, CA, MD and NJ which I have no shot of doing legally now. The only real killers that you posted were 2, 6 and 9.

Misty02
11-19-2011, 12:43
I agree with you that the amendments are horrible but that kind of stuff gets voted on for almost all major bills. You'll notice only one of the proposed amendments was adopted. Even if some of them end up in the bill I'll take it if it means I can carry when I'm in NY, CA, MD and NJ which I have no shot of doing legally now. The only real killers that you posted were 2, 6 and 9.

Believe me, I want to be wrong and find that my mistrust and suspicion is totally unfounded. Time will tell, I hope you are right if it passes.

.

kensteele
11-19-2011, 19:49
Considering your state has had concealed carry for all of two weeks, how do you have any idea what will be done if this bill passes? If certain legislators in Madison had thought the same thing you still wouldn't have any carry law. What do you suggest to get nationwide recognition? How are we going to get anything positive done if we are too scared to push for anything? I think you need to stay quiet for a while on serious issues until you learn what it is that is being talked about. Go back to your noob questions and let the grown ups discuss this.

DrtyHarry, You may have to carry two different mags and two different boxes of ammo but that sure beats what we have now. I'll invest in some ten round mags and EMFJ if I can carry in NYC and NJ.

Me, too. I would carry hardball ammo in Times Square in a heartbeat.

kensteele
11-19-2011, 19:53
Thanks for your reply. In order for me to purchase a firearm from a dealer, I need to show my drivers license. I also need to have a driver's license in order to carry. I'll look into NH, thanks for the info on that.

IMHO, I feel that if this bill passes, all I should need is my ID from my state, since we don't issue carry permits up here. I shouldn't have to go to another state and get a permit from them. That, or VT should start to issue carry permits....similar to an endorsement on your driver's license, like a motorcycle or something similar. Just pay a small fee at the DMV for the endorsement....no training or classes necessary. (but recommended if you need the training) Just a thought...




Harry

The latter is the best suggestion for you state but keep in mind doing so has it drawbacks.

kensteele
11-19-2011, 19:57
While I like what the NRA is shooting for with this bill, honestly I'm against it. I mean wouldn't this be trampling on state's rights? If people want to concealed carry their firearms in those radical states such as IL, NJ, NY, and CA then vote all the bastards out at the state level in the states that allow it.

Exactly how does a KS resident go about voting the bastards out of the CA assembly?

kensteele
11-19-2011, 20:04
Those amendments are basically amendments dreamed up by staffers who did their research on individual state laws thinking they are doing the responsible thing and looking out for the more restrictive states. Didn't want to pass legislation that would basically nullify completely the state's power.

If you saw a bill working it's way thru Congress that makes Class 3 weapons legal in all 50 states and then some Democrat tried to attach a "DNA registration" amendment to that bill, would you call your Congress person and ask them to defeat the "Class 3 bill" because it appeared to be a vehicle for something more sinister?

I want this bill because I don't want to be a criminal for owning/carrying/possessing/transporting a handgun everywhere I go. We'll fight the other nonsense when it comes but in the meantime, we should take this; it's better than a national permit.

DrtyHarry
11-19-2011, 20:26
IMHO nobody should need to get any type of permit and especially not have to pay any fee.

I agree with you 100%....but if my option is to go out of state to get a permit in order to carry in the other 49, I'd rather pay a simple fee and have a permit issued by my own state. I believe you have to pay a small fee for a carry permit in most states.

I don't believe that we should have to take classes or training in order to obtain the right to carry, much less pay for a right that we should all ready have. IMHO! Curious how this will progress!




Harry

dkbrucedvm
11-19-2011, 20:50
I guess the only thing I dont understand about the issue, is that, for example.. other Bill of Rights issues wouldnt be regulated at the state level..

For example.. if some state passed a law banning a particular religion or say the freedom of speech, it would be a Constitutional issue that the State (I dont believe) has the right to regulate...

If a State says "You no longer have the right to a trial by your peers if you deal drugs" that would infringe on the Bill of Rights and not be allowed...

Why is this different?

Some of the GT legal beagles may want to weigh in here, but here's my incomplete understanding...

The Bill of Rights originally just applied to the federal government. This was not an issue for a long time, as all state constitutions carried similar protections for citizens (freedom of religion, press, etc).

An obvious exception to this was slavery. Dred Scott (and here I get WAY out of my depth) held that if you were a slave under your home state law, you were still a slave even if you were in a state that did not allow slavery (property/contract law).

The 14th amendment, then, had to overrule all states to outlaw slavery. So it said constitutional protections applied to all US citizens. Over the years, this has been explicitly expanded beyond slavery to some other constitutional protections (doctrine of incorporation), but has NOT been explicitly expanded to incorporate the second amendment. DC vs. Heller did not achieve this, nor did McDonald vs. Chicago. So I believe, Supreme Court-wise, the situation remains ambiguous. The Court simply has not ruled on whether the 2A trumps local state laws. Now, if you want to volunteer to be the test case, just carry into DC....

Those of you who actually know something about this, feel free to chime in...:couch:

Civilian sheep Dog
11-19-2011, 22:18
It's a Trojan Horse...State laws are stronger IMO

Bren
11-21-2011, 05:32
The 14th amendment, then, had to overrule all states to outlaw slavery. So it said constitutional protections applied to all US citizens. Over the years, this has been explicitly expanded beyond slavery to some other constitutional protections (doctrine of incorporation), but has NOT been explicitly expanded to incorporate the second amendment. DC vs. Heller did not achieve this, nor did McDonald vs. Chicago. So I believe, Supreme Court-wise, the situation remains ambiguous. The Court simply has not ruled on whether the 2A trumps local state laws. Now, if you want to volunteer to be the test case, just carry into DC....

Those of you who actually know something about this, feel free to chime in...:couch:

I believe Dred Scott may have been based more on the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, ァ 1) than on the bill of rights not applying to states. This is the same basis for arguing that a person could get married to someone of the same sex in a state that allows gay marriage, then move to another state and still be legally married.

Also, I believe McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the 2nd Amendment through the 14th, since there is no other way the city of Chicago could have lost. It doesn't have to specifically be "the state" it is applied against, just that it is recognized as applying to other than the federal goverment.

xmanhockey7
11-21-2011, 10:32
I believe Dred Scott may have been based more on the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, ァ 1) than on the bill of rights not applying to states. This is the same basis for arguing that a person could get married to someone of the same sex in a state that allows gay marriage, then move to another state and still be legally married.

Also, I believe McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the 2nd Amendment through the 14th, since there is no other way the city of Chicago could have lost. It doesn't have to specifically be "the state" it is applied against, just that it is recognized as applying to other than the federal goverment.

Heres how I see it as far as the gay marriage argument goes. Lets say the state of MI were to allow gay marriage. Two males in Vermont get married. They move to MI who already allows gay marriage, then their marriage should undoubtably be valid since MI allows gay marriage. Now if the couple moves to Texas, which does not recognize gay marriage then their marriage is not valid in that state. H.R. 822 only allows concealed carry permits to be recognized in states that allow concealed carry. Illinois not recognizing concealed carry is like Texas not recognizing gay marriage.

redbaron007
11-21-2011, 13:03
HB822 is about regulating CCW. The states have been working on reciprocity for several years and are making progress, maybe not as fast as some want, but that's another topic. Look at the states from 10 years ago; very few reciprocated. This should remain the states arena. Incorporating this bill under Interstate Commerce is a joke. This means everything that crosses a state line is now regulated by the Feds. HB822 is just not a good thing.

This bill is about regulating CCW, not infringing on the 2A.

The states should still handle this issue.


:wavey:

red

Toorop
11-21-2011, 14:11
In my opinion this is just another anti-freedom unconstitutional law. The fact is that the states have the right to regulate their own citizens. Does a permit to protest work across state lines? If the occupy wall streeters in Springfield, Idaho have a permit does it mean they are free to do it nationwide such as in NYC or Chicago?

xmanhockey7
11-21-2011, 14:30
HB822 is about regulating CCW. The states have been working on reciprocity for several years and are making progress, maybe not as fast as some want, but that's another topic. Look at the states from 10 years ago; very few reciprocated. This should remain the states arena. Incorporating this bill under Interstate Commerce is a joke. This means everything that crosses a state line is now regulated by the Feds. HB822 is just not a good thing.

This bill is about regulating CCW, not infringing on the 2A.

The states should still handle this issue.


:wavey:

red

How the feds regulate guns is that they say because they cross state lines they're part of interstate commerce. The guns you carry are regulated because they go across state lines (B.S.) if you are actually crossing state lines it would seem to me you are engaged in interstate commerce especially when you are buying gas and other goods across state lines.

kensteele
11-21-2011, 17:21
Heres how I see it as far as the gay marriage argument goes. Lets say the state of MI were to allow gay marriage. Two males in Vermont get married. They move to MI who already allows gay marriage, then their marriage should undoubtably be valid since MI allows gay marriage. Now if the couple moves to Texas, which does not recognize gay marriage then their marriage is not valid in that state. H.R. 822 only allows concealed carry permits to be recognized in states that allow concealed carry. Illinois not recognizing concealed carry is like Texas not recognizing gay marriage.

According to some, MI would not have to recognise a gay couple marriage in VT even though they allow it in their own state. It should up to MI to decide.

Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about that as long as MI failure to recognise your VT marriage doesn't turn your into a MI criminal.

kensteele
11-21-2011, 17:27
In my opinion this is just another anti-freedom unconstitutional law. The fact is that the states have the right to regulate their own citizens. Does a permit to protest work across state lines? If the occupy wall streeters in Springfield, Idaho have a permit does it mean they are free to do it nationwide such as in NYC or Chicago?

Once again you're way off base. A permit to protest has a specific venue and time and purpose. No permits are issue to allow anyone to protect in [multiple] venues across state line; not even with a reciprocal agreement.

A better question would be can Idaho issue a permit to allow you to protect on a Chicago street corner? The answer is no. Just as Idaho cannot issue your permit to allow you to carry in Chicago. And the federal government is not trying to make that happen with this law.

You need to go to Chicago to get your permit and if your Constitutional rights are intact there, then you'll get a permit. If not, then the Federal government might be the solution to restore your rights in Chicago; may not be in the form of recognition of an Idaho protect permit....just so happens a federal reciprocity law for carry permit is the most appropriate solution to maintain your carry rights.

Your comparison is invalid.

kensteele
11-21-2011, 17:35
How the feds regulate guns is that they say because they cross state lines they're part of interstate commerce. The guns you carry are regulated because they go across state lines (B.S.) if you are actually crossing state lines it would seem to me you are engaged in interstate commerce especially when you are buying gas and other goods across state lines.

I see it as more of protecting my rights when i cross state lines. how can i be an honest citizen in one geographic location and a felon in another geographic location (something that could be one side of the parking lot vs the other side)....no way, that's to strict and it hurts my right to freely travel interstate with my rights intact.

I'm happy the federal government has chosen to stick up for me; it's about time. Maybe it would have been better to say "you can't carry in the other state but if you are caught with a valid permit, you're not a criminal but instead [insert administrative penalty here]." But I'll take full recognition.

I can only imagine this because the free state of MO closely next door to me has very good laws but I can image if my next door state were a MA or a NJ where my life could be practically OVER if I make a careless mistake (that might not even be my fault). If I make a mistake about something that has nothing to do with my rights, fine. But I don't make mistakes when it coms to my rights. My rights are above everyone, including the state. Good luck with this law.

xmanhockey7
11-21-2011, 19:54
Once again you're way off base. A permit to protest has a specific venue and time and purpose. No permits are issue to allow anyone to protect in [multiple] venues across state line; not even with a reciprocal agreement.

A better question would be can Idaho issue a permit to allow you to protect on a Chicago street corner? The answer is no. Just as Idaho cannot issue your permit to allow you to carry in Chicago. And the federal government is not trying to make that happen with this law.

You need to go to Chicago to get your permit and if your Constitutional rights are intact there, then you'll get a permit. If not, then the Federal government might be the solution to restore your rights in Chicago; may not be in the form of recognition of an Idaho protect permit....just so happens a federal reciprocity law for carry permit is the most appropriate solution to maintain your carry rights.

Your comparison is invalid.

Where can one apply for a permit to carry in Chicago? HR 822 would not allow carry in Illinois because they don't have it.

TexasFats
11-22-2011, 14:03
My take is that we must now be extra vigilent. We need to not only be aware of the possibility of the Senate attaching Boxer's S 176 to this bill, but we need to watch from now on that the anti-gun crowd in the House and Senate don't attach something to an appropriations bill in the future, like out guys did just recently to get the good stuff through as part of an appropriation. This bill does get the feds in an area where they have not been involved before. Yes, yes, I know that they have been regulating guns for decades, but never before have they been involved in regulating concealed carry. Now, there is the possibility that, in the future, pressure will build for consistent standards for issuance among the states. My preference would have been for lawsuits based on Article V (IIRC) and the 14th Amendments to the constitution, but that might have taken longer.

If this bill gets through the senate and is signed by Obama, then we are in trouble, because there is probably a booby trap added in the Senate. Fortunately, that would have to go to a Joint Conference Committee, and failure to agree would kill the bill.

Eternal Vigilence is the price of Liberty.

Toorop
11-22-2011, 14:13
Where can one apply for a permit to carry in Chicago? HR 822 would not allow carry in Illinois because they don't have it.

I believe he was using that as an example, as Chicago has no carry provisions and neither does the state of Illinois.

Toorop
11-22-2011, 14:22
Once again you're way off base. A permit to protest has a specific venue and time and purpose. No permits are issue to allow anyone to protect in [multiple] venues across state line; not even with a reciprocal agreement.

A better question would be can Idaho issue a permit to allow you to protect on a Chicago street corner? The answer is no. Just as Idaho cannot issue your permit to allow you to carry in Chicago. And the federal government is not trying to make that happen with this law.

You need to go to Chicago to get your permit and if your Constitutional rights are intact there, then you'll get a permit. If not, then the Federal government might be the solution to restore your rights in Chicago; may not be in the form of recognition of an Idaho protect permit....just so happens a federal reciprocity law for carry permit is the most appropriate solution to maintain your carry rights.

Your comparison is invalid.

I disagree, as the fact is that full faith and credit should permit me to exercise my rights. I guess a better analogy would be a marriage license issued in another state. Perhaps two young women fall in love in California but they want to go visit their family in Alabama, where they don't recognize want to recognize their license, should Uncle Sam force them to?

Either way this bill violates the rights of states to decide what standards they feel people should have to meet to carry a defensive firearm. I would like low standards like Arizona or Vermont. But the fact is that in some states, such as Texas, where they feel that there exists a standard to meet in order to safely a firearm, and that is their choice.

rppnj
11-22-2011, 15:03
Will H.R. 822 allow a NJ resident with a FL CCW to carry in all states? In NJ, it is absolutely impossible to get a CCW.

Toorop
11-22-2011, 15:16
Will H.R. 822 allow a NJ resident with a FL CCW to carry in all states? In NJ, it is absolutely impossible to get a CCW.

Yes it would except for Illinois and Washington DC. Meaning you could carry on your Florida permit in NJ if you like. And when Illinois passes a CCW law, you could carry there.

rppnj
11-22-2011, 16:06
Yes it would except for Illinois and Washington DC. Meaning you could carry on your Florida permit in NJ if you like. And when Illinois passes a CCW law, you could carry there.

Thanks for the quick response, Toorop! There will be lots of happy people in NJ if this pases the Senate...and I think it may because BO would not want to alienate millions of gun owners in an election year.

xmanhockey7
11-22-2011, 16:22
Yes it would except for Illinois and Washington DC. Meaning you could carry on your Florida permit in NJ if you like. And when Illinois passes a CCW law, you could carry there.

Not totally true. He could carry in every state except Illinois and New Jersey on a FL permit because H.R. 822 does not include your home state. You still must get their permit.

EDIT FOR CITE:
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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 possess or 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--

kensteele
11-22-2011, 18:30
I disagree, as the fact is that full faith and credit should permit me to exercise my rights. I guess a better analogy would be a marriage license issued in another state. Perhaps two young women fall in love in California but they want to go visit their family in Alabama, where they don't recognize want to recognize their license, should Uncle Sam force them to?

Either way this bill violates the rights of states to decide what standards they feel people should have to meet to carry a defensive firearm. I would like low standards like Arizona or Vermont. But the fact is that in some states, such as Texas, where they feel that there exists a standard to meet in order to safely a firearm, and that is their choice.

So let me see if I understand you with an example: Mary and Jane are married in CA and have lived together with their children for 15 years. They go on a road trip to FL and somewhere in the backwards state of MS, a drunk driver hits them and Jane is in a country hospital near death. In order to receive critical treatment, the voodoo doctors need a legal signature/release else the patient might die. Should Mary be able to sign or not?

EAJuggalo
11-22-2011, 20:56
Ken, wouldn't matter, critical treatment would be performed anyway. A better scenario would be if Mary were a Jehovah's Witness and would die without a blood transfusion. Should Jane be able to deny the treatment for her spouse?

I would say yes, under full faith and credit it shouldn't be a problem.

Spats McGee
11-22-2011, 21:16
Will H.R. 822 allow a NJ resident with a FL CCW to carry in all states? In NJ, it is absolutely impossible to get a CCW.
(emphasis supplied)

No. Ironically, the NJ resident is still SOL. HB 822 would allow NJ residents who possess FL CCWs to carry in any other state that doesn't prohibit CC, but would now allow them to carry in NJ.

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.
I've bolded a couple of phrases to indicate who and what has to happen to take advantage of HB 822, and underlined what HB 822 would allow a person to do.

Toorop
11-22-2011, 22:56
Not totally true. He could carry in every state except Illinois and New Jersey on a FL permit because H.R. 822 does not include your home state. You still must get their permit.

EDIT FOR CITE:

Thanks for clearing that up. So this bill helps people in shall issue states more then may issue states in my opinion.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

xmanhockey7
11-23-2011, 00:45
Thanks for clearing that up. So this bill helps people in shall issue states more then may issue states in my opinion.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

I think it actually helps people in may issue states more. Take a look at Michigan, Colorado, and South Carolina. None of these states accept non-resident permits nor issue them (ok yes SC does issue them but you must own property there). Michigan in fact will accept any license provided it is from the person's state of residence. From NJ and can't get a NJ permit but have every other non-resident permit possible to get (some require fingerprinting, be 21 yrs old, training etc), well too bad you still can't carry here. Now an 18 yr old in Indiana who does have not have to go through any training to get the permit can carry in Michigan on that permit because it's from his resident state. Colorado only accepts resident permits from states which they recognize which isn't all of them. And South Carolina recognizes very few states permits. This is one reason why I'm a huge supporter of this bill. Just by crossing an invisible line doesn't turn you into someone who is going to be irresponsible or cause problems.

Also when you look at the fact people who are in may issue states tend to have terrible reciprocity (mostly only recognized though statutory laws in other states like Michigan) this would help the people in these may issue states or any shall issue state that has horrible reciprocity from having to get 8 different permits.

Toorop
11-23-2011, 01:33
So let me see if I understand you with an example: Mary and Jane are married in CA and have lived together with their children for 15 years. They go on a road trip to FL and somewhere in the backwards state of MS, a drunk driver hits them and Jane is in a country hospital near death. In order to receive critical treatment, the voodoo doctors need a legal signature/release else the patient might die. Should Mary be able to sign or not?
In my opinion yes. I feel that it is unconstitutional to prevent gays from gettin married. However that is another thread. The supreme court and legal system seem to disagree with me right now.

EAJuggalo
11-23-2011, 06:31
Thanks for clearing that up. So this bill helps people in shall issue states more then may issue states in my opinion.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

I think that those in restrictive may issue states will have a much easier time getting it changed to shall issue if this passes. NYC, NJ, MD, HI, MA and CA will have a hard time arguing that the requirements they put on their citizens are not onerous if almost every out of state visitor can carry and nothing changes with violent crime rates.

dreis454
11-23-2011, 07:07
I see it as more of protecting my rights when i cross state lines. how can i be an honest citizen in one geographic location and a felon in another geographic location (something that could be one side of the parking lot vs the other side)....no way, that's to strict and it hurts my right to freely travel interstate with my rights intact.

I'm happy the federal government has chosen to stick up for me; it's about time. Maybe it would have been better to say "you can't carry in the other state but if you are caught with a valid permit, you're not a criminal but instead [insert administrative penalty here]." But I'll take full recognition.

I can only imagine this because the free state of MO closely next door to me has very good laws but I can image if my next door state were a MA or a NJ where my life could be practically OVER if I make a careless mistake (that might not even be my fault). If I make a mistake about something that has nothing to do with my rights, fine. But I don't make mistakes when it coms to my rights. My rights are above everyone, including the state. Good luck with this law.
agree 100%:wavey: