Now This We All Need to Support.


PDA






USMC 1975
April 16, 2008, 11:36 AM
Get on the phone, write, snail mail, e-mail and do whatever you need to do to help get this bill passed.

Finally, a politician with some brains and guts.

Here is the link to the article - http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt

I am all for this law.

Chris

If you enjoyed reading about "Now This We All Need to Support." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nplant
April 16, 2008, 12:17 PM
Unfortunately, this isn't new. It's been tried at least once in the past few years, and never gains enough steam to go anywhere. But I'll certainly write my reps again, and tell them to suck up and vote for it (they won't, but I'll bother them anyway).

sacp81170a
April 16, 2008, 12:30 PM
From the article:

His 26-year-old daughter, Kristen Boozman, has an Arkansas concealed weapons permit, as do other family members, he said. The congressman himself does not.

Yep, she got her permit last year in my class. She's a good shooter, and easy on the eyes, too. ;)

The Congressman and his wife were scheduled to take the class at the same time but had something else come up at the last minute. I'm hoping they'll get back with us this year.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

I wonder if he kisses his momma with those lips he uses to spew his filth?

El Tejon
April 16, 2008, 12:33 PM
Really? Which death row inmates?:confused:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 16, 2008, 12:34 PM
Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

I must say, I tend to agree with those "gun control advocates" on this point. This is more of a state's rights issue, and keeping the fedgov out of the states' business. The Fedgov is a government of limited enumerated powers, and I don't see what this has to do with interstate *commerce*. It's not commerce, it's about carrying guns. Now, if the federal law simply *invalidated* all state CCW laws, and said anyone can carry as in VT/AK type carry, then I'd be all for it, because it's consistent with the 2nd amendment, which is part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, trumping all state and federal. But the states should be able to decide how/when/why they recognize other state's permits. I think it's unconstitutional for a state to prevent any non-felon from carrying without a licence (with / without - doesn't matter), but IF they also want to isse CCW permits with the training and all, then they should be allowed to say who gets the permit and what other states' permits are or are not recognized. It's a weird/tough call, because as I say, I think anyone should be able to carry pretty much anywhere with or without a permit. I believe this EVEN THOUGH I myself have a permit for my state. But just because I have chosen to go through the training and apply for and get the permit does not necessarily mean that I acquiesce in their system and give up my right to carry withOUT a permit under the 2A directly (at least in theory). But to the exent the permit system exists and is legitimate, I think that each respective state should be allowed to decide the who/where/why/hows, for those that carry *under the authority of the permit*, as opposed to those that carry *under the authority of the 2A*, which is all non-felons, with or without a permit, and which situation to become acceptable in the states' eyes, would require someone to be incarcerated as a test case, in a post-positive-Heller-outcome landscape.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

That's a doozy, right there - you make-a me loff, Mr. Hamm.

El Tejon
April 16, 2008, 12:42 PM
States cannot interfere with our civil rights. This is why we have the 14th Amendments. Southern states were interfering with the rights of the freedmen, including the RKBA so Congress extended the BoR to the states.

TX1911fan
April 16, 2008, 01:38 PM
Premium, we also have the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, which requires that states give full faith and credit to actions of other states, so long as it is not against the public policy of such state. That is why we do not need a marriage license in all 50 states, or a drivers license, etc. That's also why we can enforce court judgements from one state in another state. However, something like a gay marriage could be said to violate public policy, and therefore would not need to be recognized. I don't think we need a law, just a courageous judge (except in those few states where CCW is completely outlawed. If it is possible at all, then full faith and credit should work)

USMC 1975
April 16, 2008, 01:45 PM
To me, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. My State ( TN ) and my winter State ( FL ) both have shall issue law's. But the other States like ILL would surely benefit from this proposed law.

Those are the people I feel sorry for. I try and remember that there are fellow gun owners in some States who really have it bad because of the Brady Bunch and their lock on some liberal politicians.

This law would null and void their BS approach to CCW's.

Chris

LWGN
April 16, 2008, 02:33 PM
El Tejon,

Since any felony conviction automatically disqualifies you for CCW licensure in Florida unless your rights have been restored by the convicting state following completion of your sentence, no death row inmate in any state is eligible for a Florida CCW, because, last time I checked, you can't be sentenced to death for misdemeanors...

It's bad enough that we are the laughing stock of the country for all the stupid stuff that really does happen here, without having people like this make stuff up.

Projekt
April 16, 2008, 02:38 PM
To me, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. My State ( TN ) and my winter State ( FL ) both have shall issue law's. But the other States like ILL would surely benefit from this proposed law.

Those are the people I feel sorry for. I try and remember that there are fellow gun owners in some States who really have it bad because of the Brady Bunch and their lock on some liberal politicians.

This law would null and void their BS approach to CCW's.

Chris

Poor Maryland...... :scrutiny: It's a shame i can't move.....yet.... :banghead:

GhostlyKarliion
April 16, 2008, 02:44 PM
info:

GovTrack.us. H.R. 5782--110th Congress (2008): To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in..., GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5782 (<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5782>)(accessed Apr 16, 2008)

HR 5782 IH


110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5782
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 2008
Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SALI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that 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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. 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

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) 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 pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


note, I just called my congress critter. it took exactly 43 seconds to ask her to co-sponsor this bill.

please, people call your rep. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd)

Projekt
April 16, 2008, 03:01 PM
Just e-mailed mine, not that he will even read it past the subject line.....

nplant
April 16, 2008, 03:22 PM
Another problem with this is that it doesn't actually do anything for those of us behind enemy lines. It only makes it okay for those on the right side of the border able to come in without violating laws (intentionally or not). In other words, I'm not likely to be able to get a CCW in California, so it's moot for me, even if I can get a CCW for other states. I still can't carry where I spend 99% of my life.

doc2rn
April 16, 2008, 06:35 PM
nplant you could always apply for a Florida permit and then carry through recoprocity.

If you enjoyed reading about "Now This We All Need to Support." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!