GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2011, 18:51   #1
mervstump
Member
 
mervstump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 37
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

This bill (HR 822) was introduced by Cliff Stearns in February of this year. It essentially requires that any state which allows concealed carry recognize concealed carry permits from all other states. There may be a few issues with it but on the whole it sounds good. I just checked the status of the bill and it currently has 200 co-sponsors so it just may have a chance. Write your congressman. BTW you can check the status of the bill (and find out if your congressman is a sponsor at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...112HR.lst:@@@X

Merv
mervstump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 04:53   #2
TangoFoxtrot
OIF 04-05
 
TangoFoxtrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nowhereville, USA
Posts: 4,037
Blog Entries: 2
Already did! But I don't think it stands a chance in hell.
__________________
G21 Club: 0685 -Tact. SG 7048
S/P Club: 109 - .40 Club: 0255
Black Rifle-SWMP15S1647
TangoFoxtrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 04:57   #3
firefighter4215
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,039
I'd like to see it pass, but hasn't this been introduced and failed several times in the past?
firefighter4215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 05:50   #4
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,117
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mervstump View Post
This bill (HR 822) was introduced by Cliff Stearns in February of this year. It essentially requires that any state which allows concealed carry recognize concealed carry permits from all other states. There may be a few issues with it but on the whole it sounds good. I just checked the status of the bill and it currently has 200 co-sponsors so it just may have a chance. Write your congressman. BTW you can check the status of the bill (and find out if your congressman is a sponsor at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...112HR.lst:@@@X

Merv
What do you see as the issues with it?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 06:08   #5
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,117
Blog Entries: 64
H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

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.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 06:09   #6
glock30user
Senior Member
 
glock30user's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What do you see as the issues with it?
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
__________________
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
glock30user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 06:38   #7
firemedic1343
Not an Expert!
 
firemedic1343's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
Yeah, and blanket refusal of a persons right to bear arms is a violation of ones constitutional right.
__________________
Do not try anything I say at home...or anywhere else.
firemedic1343 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 06:44   #8
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.

Last edited by HexHead; 05-08-2011 at 06:45..
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 06:47   #9
joker42179
Senior Member
 
joker42179's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.


this.....
__________________
Sig Sauer Club Member #553
Tactical Shotgun Club Member #1014


Quote:
I don't have any out of the way places big enough for my ego.
joker42179 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 09:08   #10
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.
States do not have to recognize drivers licenses from other states. They do so through a voluntary interstate compact not because of any federal law.

Though how "voluntary" it was is questionable since The federal Govt. threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that did not "voluntarily" join into the compact.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 09:10   #11
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,414
Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 11:53   #12
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.
I believe that states got together and all decided to recognise each other's DL, so they did it on their own without have been told to by the Federal gvt.

If the states would all come together on the CCW permit, that would be great.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:48   #13
Lotiki
All that is man
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, Co
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.
Are you sure about that? Google it.
__________________
The Bill of Rights (void where prohibited by law)
Lotiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 10:08   #14
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotiki View Post
Are you sure about that? Google it.
How about you tell us what states don't recognize other state's drivers licenses or heterosexual marriage licenses?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 07:58   #15
The Machinist
No Compromise
 
The Machinist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 5,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
That was my immediate thought, but then again, states don't have a right to strip the lawful among us of our right to carry concealed.
__________________
Proud to be an infidel!
The Machinist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:47   #16
StarfoxHowl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The middle of Nowhere, Afghanistan.
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Machinist View Post
That was my immediate thought, but then again, states don't have a right to strip the lawful among us of our right to carry concealed.
I don't recall that there ever was a separate 'right to carry concealed'. If there is, could you enlighten me?
StarfoxHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:23   #17
RottnJP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
RottnJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,997
I have mixed feelings on it too. I the one hand, I want it, and think that it is, at least based on my reading, permissible based on "full faith and credit."

"Article IV
Section 1.

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.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

To me, that's the applicable section of the Constitution. It's got to be based on that, and anchored to the premise that it is the states' legislation which is the governing body of law, and the U.S. law is preventing undue abridgement of one's rights when traveling in another state. Using that, you could probably stretch the commerce clause to permit it as well.

The thing that worries me, as others have mentioned, is the tendency of legislation to be twisted and abused. What to me is designed to prevent abridgement of my rights when I travel could to Hillary be an opening, as I think we all agree: "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." That *should* mean that the states' laws can be *more* permissive than the Fed's, but not *less.*

But we all know that the Fed willfully bribes the states into compliance using our own money, a la highway dollars, anti-crime dollars, anti-terrorism dollars, etc.

But here's the kicker, and ultimately why I *think* (right now, anyway) I'd vote for national reciprocity... The Fed can already pass legislation trampling on the RtKBA and using the Federal coffers to get compliance from those who are willing to let themselves be bribed... It's really just us, the good guys we can elect, and the NRA's lobbying power, that prevent that from happening already. So I guess we might as well get something good out of it while we can.
__________________
Outpost Member #69.14159

Last edited by RottnJP; 05-10-2011 at 17:24..
RottnJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 12:02   #18
A6Gator
Senior Member
 
A6Gator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Barack's Plantation
Posts: 3,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
Kinda like Obama-care?

While driver's licenses and marriages are privileges, this would provide an interesting 2A question. Are states not doing this "infringing?"
__________________
-The only easy day was yesterday
-If you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just say this to yourself... “Baa.”

Last edited by A6Gator; 05-08-2011 at 12:20..
A6Gator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 16:15   #19
Toorop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Midwest.
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by A6Gator View Post
Kinda like Obama-care?

While driver's licenses and marriages are privileges, this would provide an interesting 2A question. Are states not doing this "infringing?"
Marriage is not a privilege. In many religions you can only have sexual relations with someone whom you are married to. If you forbid people from marrying you are violating their religious beliefs in my opinion.
Toorop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 16:24   #20
vram74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 757
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?
vram74 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:04.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,372
338 Members
1,034 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42