US Senate concealed carry bill gains support


PDA






LAR-15
February 5, 2007, 03:40 PM
S.388
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Sen Thune, John [SD] (introduced 1/25/2007) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.226
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(17), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 1/25/2007 Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 1/25/2007
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 1/25/2007 Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/25/2007
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 1/25/2007 Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 1/25/2007
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/25/2007 Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 2/1/2007
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 1/29/2007 Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 1/26/2007
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 1/25/2007 Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 1/25/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 1/25/2007 Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 1/25/2007
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 2/1/2007 Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/25/2007

If you enjoyed reading about "US Senate concealed carry bill gains support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Autolycus
February 5, 2007, 03:51 PM
Well I know that my senators will not support it.

Libertylover
February 5, 2007, 04:56 PM
I had to send Sununu props for his cosponsoring this one. I can't see it passing the current Senate, but with the blue (more like RED, as in commie red!) sweeping NH, we're going to have to be extra vocal to our congresscritters so they don't start thinking us liberty minded folks have all left...

Erebus
February 5, 2007, 04:57 PM
Yea sending a letter to Kennedy or Kerry would be a waste of paper and ink. I don't think either one has ever voted for a pro gun bill in their entire careers.

Kali Endgame
February 5, 2007, 05:15 PM
I am so disappointed that Senators Fienstein and Boxer did not co-sign this wonderful piece of legislature. Really, what is the world coming to?

romma
February 5, 2007, 05:24 PM
The irony if this were to become law with the current setting...

Lone_Gunman
February 5, 2007, 05:29 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like the Republicans are introducing more pro-gun legislation now that they are no longer in control of Congress?

LAR-15
February 5, 2007, 05:47 PM
There hasn't been much gun legislation introduced on Capitol Hill this year either way...........

strat81
February 5, 2007, 05:55 PM
My senator, Ben Nelson (D, NE), is a co-sponsor. Sweet! One less letter to write.

Joe Link
February 5, 2007, 08:59 PM
You still ought to write him a letter of thanks and support :)

Juna
February 5, 2007, 09:18 PM
Well I know that my senators will not support it.

I know the feeling. :barf: I've written both my F- rated senators, and they've both replied with generic BS about how they support reducing crime WITHOUT infringing upon the rights of law abiding gun owners. Yet, I fail to see either of their names on that list. :cuss: :banghead: :fire: :barf:

There are some real morons in my state. They voted in the same schmucks who violate our IIA rights, raise our taxes, and continue to keep our status as the worst state economy and most people leaving the state in the nation! :banghead:

Liberal Gun Nut
February 5, 2007, 10:03 PM
You still ought to write him a letter of thanks and support

You should DEFINITELY write a thank-you, especially if he's a Democrat. Those thank-yous may be even more important than the please-votes.

4t5
February 5, 2007, 10:22 PM
Although I have one, I dislike the idea of having to have a license to exercise a God-given inalienable right. So we get a national CHL, making all of our state CHL's obsolete. Then we get another federal bureaucracy to administer it, unless they let the BATFE do it. And then, instead of repealing all of the state laws, all they have to do is repeal one law. The less control given to the federal government, the better!

B. Adams
February 5, 2007, 10:29 PM
I wrote to Thune, who I'm not really a fan of but he's my only real senator at the moment, and I thanked him for introducing this bill, with the hope that it can be passed. I also wrote to our only House Rep, who happens to be a Democrat but was given an A rating by the NRA (for whatever that's worth), and asked her to support a similar bill that's in the House right now. I've never written to my Congresspeople before, and somehow I doubt that what I say will really affect anything, but it was still satisfying to write and tell them how I felt.

I'm definitely going to keep my fingers crossed and hope this bill gets somewhere. :)

Gray Peterson
February 5, 2007, 10:38 PM
Although I have one, I dislike the idea of having to have a license to exercise a God-given inalienable right. So we get a national CHL, making all of our state CHL's obsolete. Then we get another federal bureaucracy to administer it, unless they let the BATFE do it. And then, instead of repealing all of the state laws, all they have to do is repeal one law. The less control given to the federal government, the better!

Um, did you even read the proposed bill?

License RECIPROCITY. Not creation of a national CHL. Can anyone get this part right?

Diamondback6
February 5, 2007, 11:22 PM
On the one hand, I like the idea.

On the other hand, I'll bet the Pinkos empty the entire medicine-chest into poison-pilling it if it looks like it'll get to a floor vote...

justashooter
February 6, 2007, 02:06 AM
"H.R. 226, introduced by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775517/posts?page=1

describing a house bill paired with S388 that would allow you to carry most places you want to go, in all states, even those without CCW, and, more importantly, in those without "shall issue" requirements, like maryland (spoken as a penna resident).

Jeff White
February 6, 2007, 02:53 AM
There it is, the civilian counterpart to HR 218. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to pass.

All of you who posted such nasty things about carry for the elite and other such nonsense can now help yourself to a large serving of crow.

Don't think you've got an out because the badged politicians won't support it. They didn't support HR 218 either.

Jeff

Liberal Gun Nut
February 6, 2007, 02:55 AM
Jeff, this bill has been introduced every year for the past several years. It gets more support every year but has yet to pass. Now for it to pass it will need to get past Speaker Pelosi.

Anyway, everyone, write your reps! Your Representative and your two senators.

Jeff White
February 6, 2007, 03:03 AM
I am aware of that. It was first introduced a year after HR218. My post is just pointing out that there was a lot of unfounded screaming of favoritism on this an a lot of other firearms forums.

Jeff

GRIZ22
February 6, 2007, 08:09 AM
Quote:

It was first introduced a year after HR218.

It took a few years for HR 218 to pass. That was with every police officer in the country already meeting some kind of standard. Let's not bad mouth a good thing, It apparently has restrictions attached but it would be a big move forward and could force all states (CA, IL, NY, NJ, among them) to become shall issue states. They'd be hard pressed to prevent their own citizens from getting a CCW permit when someone from out of state could carry on their's.

hoji
February 6, 2007, 08:46 AM
There it is, the civilian counterpart to HR 218. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to pass.

All of you who posted such nasty things about carry for the elite and other such nonsense can now help yourself to a large serving of crow.

Don't think you've got an out because the badged politicians won't support it. They didn't support HR 218 either.

Jeff


Before you start cooing and strutting about a serving of crow, just remember that they could have passed this years ago.

And remember, YOU are a civilian as well. If you think of the citizens in your jurisdiction as "civilians" it puts you in a mindset of being at war. Don't be shocked if the "civilians" see you as a jack-booted occupier.

Glockfan.45
February 6, 2007, 08:50 AM
Would that mean Illinois would have to honor a Missouri permit regardless of if Illinois issued a permit or not? If so I see myself getting a Missouri permit on that event :D

coat4gun
February 6, 2007, 08:54 AM
The "Criminal Carry Only" places setup by the Limitations in the bill concern me allot. I would hate to see this list of off limit carry places spread to the free'er States. In PA, the only place I can not carry is a courthouse and questionably a school. More off limit places do not make anyone safer.

There is no evidence that States that do limit carry more strictly are any safer... and those free'er States do not have any more problems in those locations that are restricted in other States. The list of limited places needs to be pared down extensively.

`(2) OTHER LIMITATIONS- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not, in that State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by the law of that State.'.

Jeff White
February 6, 2007, 09:34 AM
hoji,
Websters defines civilian as one not in military, police or fire service. Why do you think that it's some kind of an insult? It's simply a way to define the line between those who serve and those who don't. Neither is any level above the other.

It took 10 years to pass (and most of that time was with a republican controlled legislature) HR 218. It will probably take at least that long to pass this bill.

As for the snide comment about an at war mindset, let me remind you that soldiers (and I was one for one month shy of 29 years) protect civilians, they don't make war on them.

Jeff

ConstitutionCowboy
February 6, 2007, 11:22 AM
Some say this would come under the Fourth Amendment. If Congress wanted to follow the Constitution, this carrying guns state to state would be protected by the Second Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment wouldn't even come into play. To give to anything concerning the carrying of guns any standing under the Fourth is to say the carrying of guns has no standing under the Second Amendment, and that the prohibitions in the Second Amendment do not apply to the states.


We must be very careful what we are willing to give up in order to acquire a privilege that is supposed to be an inalienable and uninfringeable right. And, don't be fooled into thinking such law is a step in the right direction. It wouldn't be. It would only entrench all the unconstitutional law that are on the books now more deeply. This is only a placation designed to fool us into thinking our right to keep and bear arms is being enforced. Don't settle for anything less from Congress, the Court, or your local and state government than adherence to the Constitution and your inalienable rights, freedoms, and their attendant powers.

Without the power we wield from our rights, we are nothing more than villein. (Look it up. You need to know precisely what it means, because that is what we are without our rights and freedoms.)

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

Vitamin G
February 6, 2007, 11:37 AM
Feinstein, Schumer, et all will be co-sponsoring the bill...

As soon as they make a little addendum...

"All citizens will be permitted reciprocity on right to carry firearms.
1) All state-issued permites to carry concealed firearms will be valid in any other state.
2) All US citizens will be eligable for a licence to carry concealed firearms except a) those with felonious history. b) those addicted to illegal drugs. c) those mentally unstable
3) Fee for licensure shall be dependent on the individual state, as will training requirements, etc.
4) All firearms will be illegal. "


Wont it be great to have their vote?

ilove45acp
February 6, 2007, 11:46 AM
Dear Mr. ILove45ACP:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Right to Carry Act (S. 388). I appreciate hearing from you and would like the opportunity to respond. I apologize for the delay in my response.

On January 25, 2007, Senator John Thune (R-SD) introduced S. 388, of which I am an original cosponsor. The National Right to Carry Act would require states to recognize the right to carry a concealed firearm for valid permit holders from another state. Concealed carriers would be required to abide by the rules regarding concealed firearms of the state they are in regardless of the rules of the state in which they received their permit. S. 388 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it awaits further action.

A similar measure (H.R. 4547) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on January 4, 2007. H.R. 226 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits approval.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator

ilove45acp
February 6, 2007, 12:05 PM
I promise, if this, by some act of God becomes law, I'm going to visit NYC and seriously piss off all my liberal friends there!:evil:

I wonder if Blumberg's gestapo would arest me if they found out I CCW in their gulag, upss, i mean city, with my FL license.

strat81
February 6, 2007, 01:51 PM
I promise, if this, by some act of God becomes law, I'm going to visit NYC and seriously piss off all my liberal friends there!
I wonder if Blumberg's gestapo would arest me if they found out I CCW in their gulag, upss, i mean city, with my FL license.

There's no doubt in my mind: they would arrest you. Legal or not, I'd be prepared for the hassle of a lifetime.

Coronach
February 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
Before you start cooing and strutting about a serving of crow, just remember that they could have passed this years ago.

And remember, YOU are a civilian as well. If you think of the citizens in your jurisdiction as "civilians" it puts you in a mindset of being at war. Don't be shocked if the "civilians" see you as a jack-booted occupier.More to the point, those citizens (civilian or otherwise) could have directed their elected officials to "have passed this years ago." Seeing as how YOUR vote (since you like caps) counts as much as the vote of a LEO or military serviceman, I'm not sure I see your point.There's no doubt in my mind: they would arrest you. Legal or not, I'd be prepared for the hassle of a lifetime.If we're looking at a grey area in the caselaw, perhaps. Otherwise, if they did, I would not view it as a hassle, I would view it as a profit opportunity for me and my lawyer.

Mike ;)

Smurfslayer
February 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
There it is, the civilian counterpart to HR 218. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to pass.

All of you who posted such nasty things about carry for the elite and other such nonsense can now help yourself to a large serving of crow.

Don't think you've got an out because the badged politicians won't support it. They didn't support HR 218 either.


Didn't FOP support HR218? I remember being called by FOP...

A quick google brought up a host of state lodges and this thread
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-23553.html

identifies LEAA and supporters. LEAA is an arm of NRA-ILA that does NOT support nationwide reciprocity; they didn't last year so unless their position has changed, no help there. I called LEAA (because they wouldn't respond to email), getting in touch with someone there was like pulling teeth and they wanted absolutely no part of taking a position on it. Eventually, after the conversation became more adversarial I got 'no, we're not going to support it'.

What about that crow? Do you like yours with the feathers still on? :neener:

So, I ask again - where are all these law enforcement advocacy groups who came to the public, hat in hand as it were for all of us to support HR218 and enact it into law for their benefit; Where are these same groups now to support the current national reciprocity bills?

LAR-15
February 6, 2007, 03:23 PM
HR 218 didn't have a lot of support for years and many high ranking politicians in Washington still fought it's enactment into law.

shield20
February 6, 2007, 05:17 PM
NYC carry would still be illegal, because NY state permits are not valid there, neither will other state's.

k_dawg
February 6, 2007, 05:18 PM
I asked my democratic senator to please consider championing the civil rights of minorities, of any race/gender/creed or location. I doubt it would work, but who knows. At least I'll know if he is against civil rights.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 6, 2007, 08:56 PM
So, I ask again - where are all these law enforcement advocacy groups who came to the public, hat in hand as it were for all of us to support HR218 and enact it into law for their benefit; Where are these same groups now to support the current national reciprocity bills?

They've been placated, my friend. They've got what they want. HR218 was a divide and conquer play and it worked. Hundreds of thousands of police officers who were in this battle with us are now silent. They got their carry. Why should they help us?

The same will happen again. A bunch of us will get "bought off" with some move to further divide us and weaken our numbers - those of us fighting for the removal of the infringements - and our chances of success will be diminished even further. These politicians know what they are doing. Everyone else should know as well.

That which "can be given" can be taken away. The right can't be. Unfetter it and defend it - to the death if necessary. Our government and our society will get along just fine with our populace armed as it was for the first hundred years or so. The only threat an armed populace poses is to a dictatorship or tyranny.(Makes you wonder why those in government are pressing to disarm us now.... Doesn't it?)

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

How are they doing so far?

RealGun
February 7, 2007, 08:07 AM
The Constitution proposed for Iraq specified that one may own a gun with a government permit. That is the new model for democracy. The national permit or national reciprocity, Congress making it their jurisdiction, is moving in the same direction, step by step. Meanwhile, they ignore that the Constitution, combining the 2A and 14A says that States may not infringe upon the RKBA. Licensing is therefore "unconstitutional" in my mind. Why would I support institutionalizing that abuse of the Constitution?

I believe that if one carries a gun they should know how to use it and have the cool head and knowledge of the law to use it responsibly. The problem is that viewing the 2A as unconditional is damned inconvenient and quite impractical. There should be a sound basis for regulation. What I don't like is ignoring (officially) what the law says, so the real issue is that the Constituion or its interpretation should be revisited.

This national carry bill is a workaround to the legacy of court rulings or the ongoing avoidance of what the 2A and 14A really mean. Basically it abuses the rule of law and underlines that due process is a joke, especially when it comes to the RKBA.

romma
February 7, 2007, 09:57 AM
Again,,, How is forcing States to recognize each others permits, infringing? Jeeez!

RealGun
February 7, 2007, 10:18 AM
Again,,, How is forcing States to recognize each others permits, infringing? Jeeez!

It officially condones their infringing. Get it?

armoredman
February 7, 2007, 10:21 AM
If they simply acknowledge the right to carry via permit, under the full faith and credit clause, similar to what we've been doing with drivers' licenses, and marriage licenses, for years, then all good. If they try to "Real ID" the thing, by tacking on goofy restrictions, changes in all state CCW permits, (AZ doesn't have a picture on it, not firearm specific), firearm restrictions, etc, then it goes from good to sour.
All academic, will not pass, unless Pelosi successfully attaches AWB II to it.

romma
February 7, 2007, 10:46 AM
It officially condones their infringing. Get it? I get your point, but I disagree on the fact that it is only having/forcing states to reciprocate on their laws, not enacting federal controls on the licensing requirements or States restrictions themselves..

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 11:43 AM
It's about infringement. The government - ALL government- is forbidden to infringe upon the right! What is so difficult to understand about that! Government had to pass unconstitutional law to forbid carrying arms before it could pass more law creating exceptions to that law for you to be able to "lawfully" carry your arms(and even keep them in some states!).

The battle royal is to remove those infringing laws - hopefully by the legislatures repealing all those laws, or the Court shooting them down - not to have Congress pass law that will by default recognize all the state law that infringes upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

Think about the implications of this stuff, my friends, before you start tasting all that pie in the sky. All that pie in the sky is gonna hit you in the face. It may taste good, but believe me, it is not very becoming. It paints you as someone who has swallowed all those cooked-up recipes that can only lead to dictatorship, tyranny, unchecked despotism, and subjugation. Look at the damned chefs! You got Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, Boxer, and every one else of their ilk!

Eat hardy of the sweet tasting pie and suffer the inevitable indigestion, or go without and get a true feast of freedom later - a feast you cooked up yourself that no one would dare take away!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

romma
February 7, 2007, 11:49 AM
Maybe if this bill gets passed into law, and there are no wild west shoot outs, we can argue for Vermont or Alaska style carry. I believe it may be our Governments "Olive Branch" to gun owning citizens acknowledging their screwups all these years. Call me crazy, I've been called worse. Oh, if Any Gov elected official tries to attach anything all bets off, if it stays clean, I say why not?

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 01:52 PM
Maybe if this bill gets passed into law, and there are no wild west shoot outs, we can argue for Vermont or Alaska style carry. I believe it may be our Governments "Olive Branch" to gun owning citizens acknowledging their screwups all these years. Call me crazy, I've been called worse. Oh, if Any Gov elected official tries to attach anything all bets off, if it stays clean, I say why not?

Why go that route when we can argue for removing the restrictions/unconstitutional law first and then talk about it! We already have proof that Constitutional Carry is just fine! Yes, in those same two states you mentioned - Alaska and Vermont. What more proof do we need!

Let's not forget that all these laws are unconstitutional to begin with! That has to count for more than something. It must count for everything. It must count for abiding the law! The Supreme Law of the Land, to be specific.

Look, if you want to be able to apply restrictions to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, get the Constitution amended. Until then, abide the Constitution as it is, and demand no less from those of us we place in positions of power. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and demanded the inclusion of direct protection of our rights in it before they would ratify it. They knew what the Jews would rediscover in Nazi Germany. A disarmed and gagged populace can be enslaved and exterminated with impunity.

We've already let the Camel push his nose into the tent and he spits on us. You want to let him in where he can take a dump on your carpet? You want to let him in where he can infest your bed with his fleas? Swat him on the nose and get him the hell out of your tent now. You may have to kill him if he gets in any further. Government must be treated just like the camel. If he sticks his nose in your tent, he must know it'll get slapped.

This government of ours, as great a system it is(when held to the Constitution) is made up mostly of people just like you and me, except they possess enough corruption that they feel no guilt in ignoring or outright disregarding the Constitution for their own incumbency, enrichment, empowerment, or idyllic(though misguided) agenda(s). It's just people. Be just as careful who you vote for as which animal you would allow in your tent.

Don't mistake this for an Olive Branch. It's more like Hemlock.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

romma
February 7, 2007, 02:04 PM
I believe leftist cesspool pockets in major cities would ride their elected officials to vehemently oppose Vermont or Alaska carry at this stage. Can imagine their outcry of people running around their liberal elite strongholds with "hidden guns" unlicensed no less?... I believe reciprocity would be a good start.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 09:02 PM
Screw those few states with all those infringements. It ain't about those states or any states. It's about WE THE PEOPLE! It's OUR right and not in their power to interfere with it. The states can enact all the law they want that would govern when and where you may discharge your gun(s) beyond self defense, but not how you keep and bear them.

Fight for that. Fight for the right to be protected as per the Second Amendment. The end result will be the same. You'll be able to carry anywhere but you won't need a permit.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

kbheiner7
February 7, 2007, 09:19 PM
Federalizing any gun law is not a good thing people. :cuss:

Gray Peterson
February 7, 2007, 09:20 PM
Federalizing any gun law is not a good thing people.

Neither are people with reading comprehension problems.

Gray Peterson
February 7, 2007, 09:21 PM
There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

Addressed in this statement:

"Well if this bill passes, New York, California, and New Jersey will just ban carry on all public property, and then pop out of state residents that way"

Any such ban will have to affect in state residents as well as out of state residents just as much. I don't see lucky folk who managed to score a full license in NYC, NJ, or urban California, considering how much in campaign contributions and networking they had to do to be able to get their license, to all of the sudden allow their license to be completely worthless. They will fight for their licenses, and state legislators will face a choice: continue doing what they're doing and have the power brokers try to boot them out something fierce, or sit down and shut up.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)?

Federal regulation? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Did you even read what I had posted? Do you even understand what a "Notwithstanding" law is?

As I stated before, and I'll put this in upper case letters letters to get everyone's attention because it's obvious that some peole cannot read:

THERE IS NO PENALTY AS FAR AS THE FEDGOV IS CONCERNED IF YOU CARRY AGAINST THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BILL. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU LOSE THE NOTWITHSTANDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY, WHERE YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES BY THE STATE THAT YOU'RE CARRYING IN! JUST LIKE IF YOU LOADED YOUR GUN THAT'S IN YOUR TRUNK WHEN THE FOPA INTERSTATE PROTECTION LAW (18USC926A) ONLY PROTECTS UNLOADED TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES AGAINST STATE LAWS LIKE NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS WHERE ALL POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED/UNLICENSED HANDGUNS IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. IF YOU DECIDE TO LOAD UP THAT GUN IN YOUR TRUNK, YOU FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEED THE FOPA LAW FOR TRANSPORTING ACROSS PLACES LIKE NEW YORK STATE AND MASSACHUSETTS, NOT PLACES LIKE LOUISIANA AND NEW MEXICO WHERE YOUR VEHICLE IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR HOME AND THAT YOU MAY CARRY WHATEVER YOU WISH INSIDE OF YOUR VEHICLE IN THESE STATES.

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 09:32 PM
If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

I got a better idea. Call your representative and tell him to sponsor legislation to force the repeal of all infringing law in stead. Won't need 18USC926A after that passes. That would be much better, don't you think?

Woody

gunsmith
February 7, 2007, 09:37 PM
because NYC doesn't even honor NY state permits, is this true?

Gray Peterson
February 7, 2007, 09:55 PM
because NYC doesn't even honor NY state permits, is this true?

This isn't a matter of NYC as a city refusing to honor NY state licenses. This is all operation of state law in PL 400. Simply put, the state law says that anyone who has an NYC carry license may carry throughout the state, but those who have NY carry licenses outside of the city must get what's called a "special endorsement" of their NY State license. Getting one is neigh impossible just like getting a NYC carry license as a resident, unless you're Senator Joseph Bruno.

The wording of the bill, assuming it is not changed, would seem to allow you, as an NY resident outside of NYC, to carry in NYC. The language of the law is pretty clear, that ANY state license will do. If you want to get technical, all you would need is a New York Premise license (which is shall-issue) and a license to carry from any state, and you're good to go carrying statewide. The "specific locations" as contemplated doesn't include entire cities.

Gray Peterson
February 7, 2007, 10:01 PM
I got a better idea. Call your representative and tell him to sponsor legislation to force the repeal of all infringing law in stead. Won't need 18USC926A after that passes. That would be much better, don't you think?


Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, may possess, transport, or carry (whether openly or concealed) a firearm, ammunition, or components thereof without any restrictions, registration, or licensing.

I would love for this law to pass. It doesn't force a "repeal", it just states that those state laws don't apply.

ken grant
February 7, 2007, 10:47 PM
For many years Drivers License Reciprocity between states has been a given.
Now the Federal Government wants the states to have a Standard License designed by them. Several states are fighting it now but only because the states will have to assume the costs of doing it.
What makes anyone think the Feds. would not do the same or worse with the Carry License that states issue.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 10:58 PM
Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, may possess, transport, or carry (whether openly or concealed) a firearm, ammunition, or components thereof without any restrictions, registration, or licensing.

I would love for this law to pass. It doesn't force a "repeal", it just states that those state laws don't apply.

First, what you've posted is not what the bill says. It says:

`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in any State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) OTHER LIMITATIONS- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not, in that State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by the law of that State.'.

You must still have a permit, you must keep your gun concealed, the laws are not notwithstanding if the state you are in issues permits, and if the state does not issue permits, the federal laws apply.

No matter how you look at this law, you are still subject to infringing law. It's a pig in a poke.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
February 7, 2007, 10:59 PM
BINGO!

Woody

MikePGS
February 7, 2007, 11:07 PM
I know theres a few attorneys who frequent these boards so maybe they can help with this question. Isn't it illegal to prevent people from reciprocating between states? The whole reason why people freak out about gay marriage (those opposed to it at least) is that people could simply go to a state that allows it and then come back, legally married. Why can't I drive to Vermont, then start carrying without a permit? Isn't the whole idea of a federal government to provide reciprocity?

ConstitutionCowboy
February 8, 2007, 12:00 AM
It isn't about reciprocity. You shouldn't need a permit to begin with. That is one of the benefits of the Second Amendment.

Woody

Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood

Gray Peterson
February 8, 2007, 12:22 AM
You must still have a permit, you must keep your gun concealed, the laws are not notwithstanding if the state you are in issues permits, and if the state does not issue permits, the federal laws apply.

No matter how you look at this law, you are still subject to infringing law. It's a pig in a poke.


I had personally rewritten the code to give you an example of what you may be seeking. I did not intentionally change the language of the bill, I just rewrite it to where it applies to all possession, transport, carry, and ownership, without the need for license. It would wipe out assault weapons bans, magazine bans, state and local bans on certain kinds of ammo, and so on, and of course, the requirement for concealed licenses or carry licenses in general.

You must still have a permit, you must keep your gun concealed, the laws are not notwithstanding if the state you are in issues permits, and if the state does not issue permits, the federal laws apply.

Insofar as the notwithstanding portion, if you carry outside of it, all it does is remove the federal protection.

We had people swear up and down that Vermonters (who have no license to issue and thereby be subject to the thing with the "national standard") would have to follow the federal statutes (which has a lot more restrictions than just the Vermont state statutes, which I believe only prohibit carry in courts and schools) or else be charged with a crime. This is not true, because the way not withstanding laws work is that it gives a zone of protection.

Personally, I liked last year's HR 1243 better. It gave Vermonters and Alaskans full carry ability across the US, and the wording is a lot better than the "national standard" crap.

Woodcli, we keep disagreeing on the issue because you believe that we should defeat pro-gun bills that don't do anything than repeal every federal, state, and local gun control law on the books. That any forward movement is somehow a "step back". I don't see how.

gunsmith
February 8, 2007, 12:33 AM
will get me over a year in Rikers Island and a felony if I go home (2 NYC) for a visit with my gun....I want reciprocity.

After a couple of years of no blood in the streets the argument for full civil rights may be able to be argued in court.

There have been people who have sued NY claiming violation of the 2nd Amendent.

If they had won there wouldn't be this problem

Don't Tread On Me
February 8, 2007, 04:06 AM
1] November 2006 makes this discussion meaningless.

2] Cop carry, will NEVER lead to national-carry or reciprocity.

3] Allowing the feds to start playing with state concealed carry is a very dangerous precedent that you will all regret.

4] The Federal government is not friendly to your gun rights.

5] The only reason cop-carry was passed was because those very same politicians in DC view cops as a different class of human being than regular civilians. It is this distinction that some people in this thread have a hard time understanding. Do not confuse the Federal government's passing of cop-carry as some how being a harbinger of national carry or national reciprocity.

5] Cop-carry was an extremely destructive bill to our RKBA cause. It further cemented the institutionalized and societal gap between civilians and authorities in respect to firearms. Rather than cop-carry, there should have been national-carry for ALL AMERICANS with no license...that way cops, who are off-duty civilians would still get to carry everywhere. But, as you can see - that didn't happen because some people see a difference significant enough between civilians and police officers to deny civilians this "privilege" ....


It wasn't even on the table. It wasn't even in their mind.


Think about that.



Then talk to me about elitism.

Robert Hairless
February 8, 2007, 03:38 PM
gunsmith:

"you shouldn't need a permit for your rights" will get me over a year in Rikers Island and a felony if I go home (2 NYC) for a visit with my gun....I want reciprocity.

After a couple of years of no blood in the streets the argument for full civil rights may be able to be argued in court.

There have been people who have sued NY claiming violation of the 2nd Amendent.

If they had won there wouldn't be this problem

You must be wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. That is why there are no restrictive gun laws in this country and will never be. If you think that there are, it must be something wrong with your thinking.

Bach did not sue New York State claiming that the State violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals by not issuing non-resident permits. That is why there was no such case as Bach v. Pataki. Obviously, then, Judge Mordue could not have ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to keep and bear arms to any individual.

Had any of those things happened, they would have infringed our Second Amendment rights. So, again obviously, they did not happen and there is no need for federal law requiring national concealed carry reciprocity. That is also why such a law would set a bad precedent: it would allow the federal government to enact laws that affect the Second Amendment for the very first time. If the federal government were allowed to do it even this one time, the federal government would have the precedent to do it again. That must not be allowed to happen.

When 1934 comes, for example, the federal government might even regulate machine guns in violation of the Second Amendment. In 1912 the federal government might not object to New York City's enactment of the Sullivan Law. The federal government might even make laws concerning the sale, purchase, transfer, and transportation of firearms and ammunition.

All that could happen if we supported even an apparently harmless and useful law that would allow people with a CWP from any state to travel to any other state without becoming criminals. It is far better for States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, and others to criminalize citizens of other parts of the United States who want to travel in their own country. (That, by the way, is States Rights. It's why the Civil War never happened, why the Emancipation Proclamation was never issued, and why slavery is legal everywhere in this country.)

It is why none of the people who talk about the sanctity of the Second Amendment have a concealed weapons permit. They know that if they even applied for a CWP they would be weakening the Second Amendment.

No offense intended, but you must learn to think better if you intend to argue with people who understand the Second Amendment's purity. A good way to improve your thought processes would be to study their messages and compare their thinking to what happens in the real world. Then you too will be able to wear the Second Amendment as your shield of virtue. It will help you understand why a law that helps you is in fact an attack on your liberties. Sarah Brady is giving you a small Milky Way http://www.candydirect.com/cleanthumbs/trays/milkywaycaramel.jpg while withholding the nuts. What is gun ownership without nuts?

gunsmith
February 8, 2007, 04:06 PM
It would be soooo great to be able to visit home and carry protection.
I have seen 30 people attacking one person in NYC, I have seen demented
homeless attacking people with a knife because the little voices told them to.

I want reciprocity!

shield20
February 8, 2007, 06:16 PM
Sorry gunsmith:

"(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in any State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,

subject to subsection (b).

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms , a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State [I]under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

S 400.00
6)...A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not
otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective
throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the
city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by
the police commissioner of that city...


A NYS Permit is NOT valid in NYC, therefore NO OTHER state's permit will be valid in NYC either.

gunsmith
February 8, 2007, 10:13 PM
force NYC to recognize ccw's?

could other states stop have reciprocity for NY drivers licensces? (SIC) in retaliation?

gunsmith
February 8, 2007, 10:20 PM
I know where you're coming from, my brother was NYPD and latteralled elsewhere.

I told him about FOPA and he assured me it would still mean a few nights in jail (at the very least) but Lonnie addressed your concern earlier in the thread.

This isn't a matter of NYC as a city refusing to honor NY state licenses. This is all operation of state law in PL 400. Simply put, the state law says that anyone who has an NYC carry license may carry throughout the state, but those who have NY carry licenses outside of the city must get what's called a "special endorsement" of their NY State license. Getting one is neigh impossible just like getting a NYC carry license as a resident, unless you're Senator Joseph Bruno.

The wording of the bill, assuming it is not changed, would seem to allow you, as an NY resident outside of NYC, to carry in NYC. The language of the law is pretty clear, that ANY state license will do. If you want to get technical, all you would need is a New York Premise license (which is shall-issue) and a license to carry from any state, and you're good to go carrying statewide. The "specific locations" as contemplated doesn't include entire cities.

Outlaws
February 8, 2007, 11:19 PM
If its gaining support then its only because a few Senators are realizing they can attached a thing that says all firearms must be registered in a national database inorder to comply.

But then they will leave the wording vague or state that all firearms must be registered even if you don't intend to carry across state lines.

Oh, then they can attach the AWB2 on the bottom of the bill. Along with the .50 bill. Oh, and the ammunition tax.

Its really great, we can call it the "Right to Bear Arms Across the Country Act of 2007." It has a nice ring doesn't it? Whats more patriotic than the right to bear arms eh? Of course that must pass, it would be unconstitutional and unAmerican not to vote for it.

Outlaws
February 8, 2007, 11:27 PM
I would love for this law to pass. It doesn't force a "repeal", it just states that those state laws don't apply.


In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in any State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection


It says "notwithsatanding". That means that as long as there is not state law prohibiting you from carrying, then you may. It doesn't mean the state laws don't apply. Infact, I fail to see what the point of this bill is.

Autolycus
February 9, 2007, 12:08 AM
Where is the NRA on this bill?

Trip20
February 9, 2007, 10:03 AM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2553

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189

shield20
February 9, 2007, 10:24 AM
Gunsmith,

Lonnie did not address my concerns.

I posted the portion of the NY law EXACTLY. I posted the new Senate Bill exactly. How anyone could read both, and think that some other state's permit, (or their own normal NYS permit) will suddenly become valid in NYC, when NO NY State permit is (except for very specific conditions, and specific retired LE), is beyond me.

1) NY State issues pistol permits. (NY City Police Commissioner issues NY City 'validity' permits.
2) NY State permits are typically not legal in NYC
3) The federal bill allows any state's permit to be used in NY state, under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.

Please explain what I am missing here.


6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city.

Such license to carry or possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of that city, provided that

(a)the firearms covered by such license have been purchased from a licensed dealer within the city of New York and are being transported out of said city forthwith and immediately from said dealer by the licensee in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip; or provided that
(b)the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted, or provided that
(c) the firearms covered by such license are carried by armored car security guards transporting money or other valuables, in, to, or from motor vehicles commonly known as armored cars, during the course of their employment; or provided that
(d)the licensee is a retired police officer as police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided, further, however, that if such license was not issued in the city of New York it must be marked "Retired Police Officer" or "Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer", as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons; or provided that
(e) the licensee is a peace officer described in subdivision four of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law and the license, if issued by other than the city of New York, is marked "New York State Tax Department Peace Officer" and in such case the exemption shall apply only to the firearm issued to such licensee by the department of taxation and finance[. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may be, where issued.

Neo-Luddite
February 9, 2007, 11:53 AM
"If its gaining support then its only because a few Senators are realizing they can attached a thing that says all firearms must be registered in a national database inorder to comply."


Or any other of the varrious nasty consequences. I'm in Illinois, the land of no issue, and someone is waiting in the tall grass to attach something in the dead of night to this that will *uck everything up in a very serious way.

And believe me, the prospect of being able to carry in my home state on my PA permit is very attractive.

Liberal Gun Nut
February 9, 2007, 12:31 PM
It so depressing to me to read the responses on this. As I tried to point out in my "the people rose up and burnded down the Whitehouse in 1934" and as someone else pointed out "the 2nd is why no gun control laws were passed in 1934, 1968, etc", they ALREADY have the power to regulate guns any way they want to at a federal level, including a total ban or anything. If they can impose a total ban on MGs there's no difference between that and a total ban on handguns. If they can totally ban it, what limits are there on their power? None!

I know, I don't like this. The voters should have elected politicians who would never do such things. The Supreme Court should slap the politicians when the pols make a mistake. Law enforcement should refuse to enforce these laws when the Supreme Court makes a mistake. There should be massive (peaceful) protests and civil disobedience when they make a mistake. Etc. But you know what NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS HAS HAPPENED.

Within our reality this law is all positive.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 9, 2007, 01:04 PM
I must disagree with you, Liberal Gun Nut. There is an active and vociferous movement in this country to unfetter the Right to Keep and Bear Arms(among other rights) and this is a diversion, or an attempt to placate those active in the quest to force Congress and the Court to abide the Constitution. There is no other reason for this bill or any bill like it. It is meant to shut us up.

The fewer of us crying out for the Constitution, the easier it will be for those opposed to the Constitution to wipe us out.

There will be no removal of any infringements to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms if this bill passes. All the law already on the books will stay in place, and one trip-up, one little oopsie, and down you go. This is in no way more freedom. It is more opportunity for you to get screwed out of your freedom to exercise your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Our rights are akin to our skin. Just as our skin shields us from the elements, so do our rights shield us from subjugation. Don't eat your own skin to satisfy your hunger. Doesn't matter how full you feel, you'll soon die of the first little microbe to come along. We've Already got too many microbial infringements gnawing holes in our skin now. Get rid of those infringements and you'll have all the freedom you could possibly consume.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

org
February 9, 2007, 01:21 PM
<quote>It says "notwithsatanding". That means that as long as there is not state law prohibiting you from carrying, then you may. It doesn't mean the state laws don't apply. Infact, I fail to see what the point of this bill is.<quote>

Notwithstanding means "despite". This is fresh from the dictionary and it indicates that regardless of what the state law says....

Gifted
February 9, 2007, 02:25 PM
Places like ********** and Maryland issue permits, but aren't "shall issue". You could go to say, Florida, get a nonresident permit, and carry there. You can't do that right now.

If they renew the AW, pull the Hughes amendment. If they do something else, counter. It'll go back and forth so much that they'll eventually have to scrap it.

rhubarb
February 15, 2007, 05:59 PM
I finally got a reply from Senator Cornyn (R-Texas), one of my servants in the Senate:

Dear Mr. Rhubarb:

Thank you for contacting me about federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law and meting out longer sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes will reduce crime much more effectively than gun or equipment bans.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to uphold our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

I don't see protecting Constitutional rights listed under "legitimate purposes." :confused:

Kael
February 15, 2007, 06:44 PM
I don't see protecting Constitutional rights listed under "legitimate purposes."
Perhaps not, but Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms and uphold our Second Amendment rights seems pretty clear cut to me. :)

B. Adams
February 15, 2007, 08:05 PM
Ironically, I received a reply from my Democratic representative concening the House bill, but not my Republican senator that introduced the senate bill. Maybe he's got bigger things on his mind.

I can't tell if this is a generic response, but it seems fairly legitimate:

Dear Brian:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 226,
which would create a national standard for the carrying of
concealed firearms. I appreciate hearing from you.

Rep. Cliff Sterns of Florida re-introduced this bill on January 4,
2007. As you are probably aware, it would allow any person with a
valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a
state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state, in accordance
with the restrictions of that state.

Growing up on my family's farm near Houghton and the Sand
Lake Wildlife Refuge in the northeast part of the state, I appreciate
that outdoors activities are a great South Dakota tradition and vital
to our state's economy. Our wonderful culture of recreation and
outdoors activities contributes greatly to our high quality of life,
and I am working in Congress on behalf of our sportsmen and
women. We are all lucky to live here, and have an obligation and
opportunity to preserve the nation's best quality of life for future
generations. Guns are a part of South Dakota and I will fight to
protect the rights of responsible gun owners in our state.

I was pleased to receive an "A" rating from the NRA because of
my support of the rights of gun owners. As a defender of our
Second Amendment rights, I support allowing law-abiding citizens
to exercise their right to carry firearms for personal protection. I
oppose federal firearm registration and licensing and attempts to
limit gun owners' rights through bans on types of firearms or
ammunition.

This bill has most recently been referred to the House Committee
on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security. I will be sure to keep your comments in mind
as it makes its way through the legislative proves. Thanks again
for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth

Car Knocker
February 15, 2007, 11:15 PM
So, does Rep. Herseth support H.R. 226 or not? She certainly did a nice tapdance in her response but I don't see anything definitive.

B. Adams
February 15, 2007, 11:19 PM
...I support allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry firearms for personal protection.

Yeah, I guess she doesn't say it implicitly, but it kind of seems that she does. But your right, it's hard to tell just from what she wrote.

Geronimo45
February 15, 2007, 11:33 PM
"Sen Crapo, Mike"
His ads for candidacy must've been interesting, methinks.

Sounds like a good bill, if it passes. Heck, the Dems might decide that they need to get the gunny vote in '08, and pass it on through. Politics makes strange bedfellows, after all.

Love to carry in NY, just to tweak Pataki and Bloomberg.

Doesn't DC allow concealed carry, if you get the Marion Berry Memorial "***** set me up" permit? If this law passes... it might apply to DC, too.

If you enjoyed reading about "US Senate concealed carry bill gains support" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!