National Right-To-Carry Bill


PDA






Malfader13
February 7, 2006, 06:28 PM
Most likely this has been brought to your attention, but I wanted to make sure it had.

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547--a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

For more information on the bill, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 4547!

If you enjoyed reading about "National Right-To-Carry Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ElTacoGrande
February 7, 2006, 07:00 PM
This subject comes up here with some regularity. Opinions are divided.


Those in states which RTC are (justifiably) worried about getting Federal invovlement in their states' issuance policies. Yes this would just be reciprocity, but they said the same thing about drivers licenses, etc. "Mission creep".
Those of us who live in states where shall-issue will never ever happen are more enthusiastic, because it would be a way of forcing shall-issue into their states. For example, Hawaii has discretionary permits which are never ever issued, and they will never ever pass a shall-issue CCW law. The only way anyone in Hawaii is ever going to get a permit is with a law like this.
Anyway, it seems unlikely to pass


I'm in California, one of the states that is going to have a very tough fight to get any kind of CCW going, so for me, I would certainly benefit from a bill like this. I guess I support it, but it makes no difference because my reps wouldn't vote for it no matter what.

Gray Peterson
February 8, 2006, 12:16 AM
It's a really, really dumb idea. Do you actually want CCW to be in the hands of the Feds? Face it, if the current Congress/Administration can say CCW for everybody state law notwithstanding, a future Congress/Administration can say CCW for NOBODY state law notwithstanding. Be careful what you wish for......

I might point out that the anti-gunners certainly don't need this law as a stepping stone to ban CCW nationwide.

Believe me, their little crony Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey has introduced bills to ban carrying of firearms generally with "limited exception", basically the US AG's office giving out permits to "those in need", or even requiring the local authorities to not issue permits for general personal protection anymore, basically similar to Canada where only 50 people have personal protection licenses to carry generally throughout the country.

A few questions for everyone:

1. Does anyone here really think that if the anti-gunners in Congress do take full control, that they will need HR1243 or HR4547 to set a precendent for banning concealed carry?

2. Does HR4547 beat out HR1243?

My answer to the first question is no. Sniveling anti-gunners are still going to be sniveling anti-gunners, and I believe that instead encouraging them to ban guns, it would at least keep it at bay. Anyone remember the rails of politics? CCW reciprocity, or even just CCW in general would be one of the things that will be extraordinarily resistant to change, like Social Security, if this law passes.

My answer to the second question is no. HR1243 is still the superior bill. The federal government should not be setting bright line standards. HR1243 is the constitutional solution.

Instead of setting a blight line standard of places you can't carry unless the states specifically that you can carry, HR1243 states that besides the state's concealed carry ban itself and whatever registration requirements that would get in the way of a non-resident carrying a handgun for personal protection, you have to honor a specific location prohibition.

For example, Wisconsin, a prohibited CCW state, bans guns generally in "Taverns". Under HR1243, you would be able to carry everywhere except for Taverns and the other specified places in statute where you can't carry.

HR1243 has more cosponsors, has more momentum, and has a broader base of support. Rep. Stearns is late in the game, and basically needs to throw his weight behind HR1243.

woerm
February 8, 2006, 12:28 AM
HR 1243 is VT and AK friendly.

but the in yer face of 4547 to the non permit states is a nice slap at the looney victim disarmament left:D

beerslurpy
February 8, 2006, 12:28 AM
Thanks lonnie, that is exactly my thinking as well.

The anti-gunners do not need a well-intentioned pro-gun statute to justify writing anti-gun statutes. They will plow ahead without any regard for what we have done or what the constitution says if they regain power.

I think national vermont friendly CCW reciprocity would be a HUGE win for all americans, especially those living in communist occupied territory (CA/NY/NJ/MA/etc).

Any california gunnies who want to rent out some sleeping space in my garage to establish FL residency are welcome, if only to screw with Bill Lockyer.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 01:02 AM
I'd be all for it if it simply made all states recognize fair faith and credit when dealing with CCW's and the feds don't actually get control or a say in anything.

I am kinda torn on how the bills actually read though...beware the serpents, even when they smile and bring you gifts.

ElTacoGrande
February 8, 2006, 01:10 AM
As a Californian, this bill would be a good thing for me. Also, CCW puts an end to new gun laws; if people can carry, what is the point of arguing over how many rounds in the magazine, etc? Also it's one of those things that, once it becomes a law, it can't be undone. I think Social Security is a terrible law, and a lot of other people do too, but it has too much inertia and too many people are too invested in it. CCW would be not at that same size of a law, but it would also have inertia and stakeholders and it would never go away if it were national.

Does this thing have a realistic chance of passing and getting signed? I know it has risks, but it might be the only way many of us could ever have a shot at CCW.

Manedwolf
February 8, 2006, 03:56 AM
HR 1243 is VT and AK friendly.

but the in yer face of 4547 to the non permit states is a nice slap at the looney victim disarmament left:D

If I could carry freely from NH into MA, I'd sure feel safer, and hopefully that'd cause an uproar among the citizens of "HEY! How come THEY get to..."...and legislative change.

Nice dream, anyway.

LAK
February 8, 2006, 05:33 AM
Kill this Bill.

It acknowledges and adds credit to a false Federal jurisdiction, regulatory and taxation powers over the bearing of private arms by private citizens within the jurisdictions of the States.

It is just another Trojan horse that needs burning at the gate.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

USMCRotrHed
February 8, 2006, 06:23 AM
I think it is true that if the feds want to get rid of CCW, they won't need this bill to give them jurisdiction. But in court, this bill would give jursdiction to a federal court if no other federal questions were raised. Just something to consider. On the other hand, if one state that doesn't allow "same sex" marriages is forced to honor that marriage from another state, why shouldn't the same apply to CCW. Then on the other hand.....wait, that's 3 hands...nevermind.

Devonai
February 8, 2006, 06:32 AM
HR 1243 is VT and AK friendly.

but the in yer face of 4547 to the non permit states is a nice slap at the looney victim disarmament left

If this comes to pass I suggest VT and Alaska hand out for free those little blue ribbons we used to get in grammar school for field day events, with "concealed weapons permit" printed thereupon.

USMCRotrHed
February 8, 2006, 06:35 AM
If this comes to pass I suggest VT and Alaska hand out for free those little blue ribbons we used to get in grammar school for field day events, with "concealed weapons permit" printed thereupon.

I second that!

Matthew748
February 8, 2006, 06:58 AM
The states seem to be hashing this out pretty well among themselves already. I would prefer the feds not get involved. Anything they touch seems to go bad in time.

Besides, bills change. I would sure hate to see something like this pass and then get amended to include a set of minimum criteria for CCW permits. If they use the Indiana or Pennsylvania permit as a model that's fine, but I have a feeling that they would use the Maryland or New Jersey permit as a model. Meaning that only the connected could get permits. No thanks, it seems far too risky.

Skeptic
February 8, 2006, 09:30 AM
Thanks lonnie, that is exactly my thinking as well.

The anti-gunners do not need a well-intentioned pro-gun statute to justify writing anti-gun statutes. They will plow ahead without any regard for what we have done or what the constitution says if they regain power.

I think national vermont friendly CCW reciprocity would be a HUGE win for all americans, especially those living in communist occupied territory (CA/NY/NJ/MA/etc).

Any california gunnies who want to rent out some sleeping space in my garage to establish FL residency are welcome, if only to screw with Bill Lockyer.


Does the same garage offer apply to those of us living in the Peoples Democratic Socialist Utopia of Maryland?

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 10:21 AM
Most likely this has been brought to your attention, but I wanted to make sure it had.

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547--a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

For more information on the bill, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 4547!Mr. Stern happens to be my Congressman, and he's already well aware of my support for such laws. I contact him regularly about such matters.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 10:34 AM
Kill this Bill.

It acknowledges and adds credit to a false Federal jurisdiction, regulatory and taxation powers over the bearing of private arms by private citizens within the jurisdictions of the States.

It is just another Trojan horse that needs burning at the gate.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.orgLAK, I am torn between your position and the other. I certainly am against ANY claim to Federal jurisdiction over State carry laws, but as I understand this, it is not a claim to jurisdiction over State laws, but over full faith and credit each State owes to each other State regarding such things as marriage licenses. Why shouldn't this fit into that concept? To suggest that States have the just authority under our system to outlaw the carry of firearms for self-defense sort of makes a nullity of the Second Amendment, doesn't it? Didn't all the States agree, when they signed onto the US Constitution, to the proposition that the people have a right to keep and bear arms?

hugh damright
February 8, 2006, 11:39 AM
as I understand this, it is not a claim to jurisdiction over State laws, but over full faith and credit each State owes to each other State regarding such things as marriage licenses. Why shouldn't this fit into that concept?
The full faith and credit clause was never intended to apply to CCW. In the last week, I have heard people try to find ways to justify federal intrusion into CCW using the full faith and credit clause, the militia clause, the Second Amendment, and even The Declaration of Independence.

To suggest that States have the just authority under our system to outlaw the carry of firearms for self-defense sort of makes a nullity of the Second Amendment, doesn't it?
No, because self-defense, like CCW, comes under the police powers reserved to the States. The Second Amendment concerns defense of a free State i.e. the collective defense. And besides, we are not talking about carrying guns or self-defense, we are talking about CCW. I used to live in NC when we had no CCW, but we still had a RKBA and a right to self-defense.

Didn't all the States agree, when they signed onto the US Constitution, to the proposition that the people have a right to keep and bear arms?
When the Constitution was proposed to the States, they requested an amendment to address the federal power over the militia. The States did not request that the federal government assume jurisdiction over CCW or our individual RKBA. In fact, the States #1 request was that all powers not delegated to the US remain with the States and therefore CCW is a States' right.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 11:52 AM
In fact, the States #1 request was that all powers not delegated to the US remain with the States and therefore CCW is a States' right.Yes, but I am arguing that one of the DELEGATED powers of the Federal Government is that of requiring full faith and credit by each State of each other State's public acts, which a CCW license is, i.e., a public act. See Article IV, Section 1. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts of every other State." Further, "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts shall be proved and the effect thereof." Seems pretty clear from this that, should Congress choose to act in this area, i.e., that of requiring full faith and credit regarding CCW licensing, it has the Constitutional authority to do so, and, more importantly, to prescribe the effects thereof. So, for example, if you were to argue that the proper effects of this power do not extend to CCW licencing, Congress is empowered by the Constitution, in the section noted supra, to prescribe that this is in fact precisely the proper effect of this power.

fletcher
February 8, 2006, 12:31 PM
I agree with ^

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 01:08 PM
I think the bill is a very good idea. It doesn't give feds any role in CCW issuing or terms. All it does is say that other states have to respect licensing of other states. The only thing that worries me is it might cause some states that are easy to get a permit in to be persuaded to tighten up a bit in order to get the bill passed, not likly but possible.

Also states which aren't CCW friendly could just inact redicules no carry zones which would go around it and make it nearly impossible to legaly carry anyway.

censored one
February 8, 2006, 01:20 PM
That would be great!!!! the current system is like not being able to drive in another state with your states drivers license.

cane
February 8, 2006, 02:44 PM
Someone may have already posted this and I missed it. AK will issue a CCW permit if a resident is traveling and needs one for reciprocity.

CAnnoneer
February 8, 2006, 09:34 PM
I think a better move would be to roll back 50 years of leftist legislation and jurislegislation, rather than make new laws. As pointed out above, though as a Californian such a bill would benefit me, I'd rather not see the fed.gov get even more power over the individual states.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 09:42 PM
I think a better move would be to roll back 50 years of leftist legislation and jurislegislation, rather than make new laws. As pointed out above, though as a Californian such a bill would benefit me, I'd rather not see the fed.gov get even more power over the individual states.I find that I am sympathetic to that argument.

beerslurpy
February 8, 2006, 09:58 PM
I find that I am sympathetic to that argument.
As am I, but the lesser of two goods is still pretty good, and more likely to be accomplished.

I am glad to see you have come around to this way of thinking hawkeye. I think I remember you were shooting steam out your ears the last time this came up about how it violated states rights.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 10:48 PM
As am I, but the lesser of two goods is still pretty good, and more likely to be accomplished.

I am glad to see you have come around to this way of thinking hawkeye. I think I remember you were shooting steam out your ears the last time this came up about how it violated states rights.Beerslurpy, I have always been able to see and appreciate both sides to this particular debate. My present position remains consistent with the States' Rights position in that this is an exercise of Federal power which is, I argue, in fact Constitutionally delegated, i.e., to require all States to give full faith and credit to the public acts of all other States. I believe, however, that if a State government chooses not to allow concealed carry for its own residents, Full Faith and Credit does not interfere with this State power. Those States denying such authority to their citizens, however, could be required, consistent with Full Faith and Credit, to allow citizens from other States who possess a license, or citizens of States whose laws do not require one, to travel into those States carrying their CCW.

Gatman
February 8, 2006, 11:59 PM
Thanks lonnie, that is exactly my thinking as well.

The anti-gunners do not need a well-intentioned pro-gun statute to justify writing anti-gun statutes. They will plow ahead without any regard for what we have done or what the constitution says if they regain power.

I think national vermont friendly CCW reciprocity would be a HUGE win for all americans, especially those living in communist occupied territory (CA/NY/NJ/MA/etc).

Any california gunnies who want to rent out some sleeping space in my garage to establish FL residency are welcome, if only to screw with Bill Lockyer.

How about Illinois gunners? Just so I can flaunt my permit in the face of Mayor Daley.:neener:

ElTacoGrande
February 9, 2006, 02:37 AM
How about Illinois gunners? Just so I can flaunt my permit in the face of Mayor Daley.:neener:
Yeah, for those of us in states where CCW is going to be difficult or impossible, obviously, we tend to favor this type of bill, despite some of the potential down-sides.

Can someone give me a hint on how likely this thing is? It seems like if it doesn't pass now, it may never be able to. Our next pres might be a dem, the house might change in the next election, etc.

LAK
February 9, 2006, 03:02 AM
I think it is true that if the feds want to get rid of CCW, they won't need this bill to give them jurisdiction. But in court, this bill would give jursdiction to a federal court if no other federal questions were raised. Just something to consider. On the other hand, if one state that doesn't allow "same sex" marriages is forced to honor that marriage from another state, why shouldn't the same apply to CCW. Then on the other hand.....wait, that's 3 hands...nevermind.
The root problem is Federal involvement from the start.

I do not see any avenue for getting any case concerning say, an individual "carrying an open or concealed weapon in Vermont", into a Federal court. Unless the person had commited a crime on property belonging to, under the control of or otherwise falling under partial or exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government. And the alleged crime was not simply "carrying a handgun somewhere in Vermont".

Sure the Federal court might invent jurisdiction over anything; they have a track record of doing just that. The real peril is it's universal acceptance when it does.

It follows that anything that opens an invitation to Federal jurisdiction over the nationwide licensing, restrictions, regulation and taxation of carrying firearms will lead to more licensing, restrictions, regulation and taxation of carrying firearms.
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

If you enjoyed reading about "National Right-To-Carry Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!