National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012


PDA






Pensfan
March 14, 2012, 10:30 AM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2012-introduced-in-us-senate.aspx

Long story short.... any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state's laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

I support this idea after reading the actual bill and sent a message to my senators, congressman, and pres Obama.

Any thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Pensfan
March 14, 2012, 10:31 AM
Using the NRA-ILA app, located here (http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx), I wrote the following message to both senators, my rep, and pres Obama.

Esteemed Senator Claire McCaskill,
As I am sure you are aware, yesterday March 13th Senate Bill S. 2188 (the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012") was introduced by U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). As a concerned citizen, supporter of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, a concealed carry permit holder, and registered and active voter, I am writing to you in hope that you share the same concern that I do regarding the status of this bill.

I pray that you agree that interstate reciprocity will serve as a fundamental protection of the right to self-defense by providing people with the ability to protect themselves not only in their home states, but anywhere they travel where concealed carry is legal.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this issue. I pray that you and your fellow Congress members share this same view and vote in support of S.2188, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012. I welcome any replies or discussion of this issue via email at [email address].

Thank you and have a blessed day!

In Christ's Service,
- Timothy

tyeo098
March 14, 2012, 10:48 AM
Contrary to the false claims of some, these bills would not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind.

These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

FINALLY. After 3 months of hearing it from me, maybe the nay-sayers will realize this bill isn't some sneaky gun-control legislation.

AirForceShooter
March 14, 2012, 12:32 PM
Support the 14th Amensment and national carry becomes irrelevant.

And I certainly don't want the BATF in this issue

AFS

Rail Driver
March 14, 2012, 12:59 PM
Support the 14th Amensment and national carry becomes irrelevant.

And I certainly don't want the BATF in this issue

AFS
How do you explain Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey and other VEHEMENTLY anti-gun states then, when looked at in the context of the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause?

(Edit to add: Especially New York, with the several felony prosecutions in process currently for "illegal possession/carry of firearms)

JRH6856
March 14, 2012, 01:03 PM
How do you explain Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey and other VEHEMENTLY anti-gun states then, when looked at in the context of the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause?

They are in violation.

FuzzyBunny
March 14, 2012, 01:36 PM
I say NAY

The fedgov already has its marching orders from the 2nd amendment.

The States in no way requires any input frim them on the subject of carry.

tmoore912
March 14, 2012, 08:30 PM
Sorry guys, but I'm all for the Federal Government passing legislation that would make every state recognize my Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL). If that is what it takes to be able to carry everywhere I travel, then I'm for it.

ETA: I like the House Bill version better though.

zorro45
March 14, 2012, 09:17 PM
I don't think the life of a retired LEO is worth any more than that of myself or my family members. I understand everyone's concerns, but I think the states need some "reminding" about 2A, and this is it.

shootniron
March 14, 2012, 09:25 PM
The only thing that I want from the federales, is for them to stay out of regulating my gun rights. If I cannot meet the legal standard to carry in a state...I will leave my gun at home.

coolluke01
March 14, 2012, 10:51 PM
Im not sure I like the idea of Jim Bob carrying in MN just because he got a piece of paper from the court house. Many don't even know the proper use of force for their own state let alone my state.

However I know everyone has the right to carry.

I would rather the Fed stay out of regulating states. I think they should intervene when states like Illinois makes illegal laws regulating firearm possession. But every state should be able to make laws regulating how they will issue the permits and who they will allow to carry in their state. A blanket statement from the Fed isn't a usually a good thing.

JRH6856
March 14, 2012, 11:11 PM
Many don't even know the proper use of force for their own state let alone my state.

However I know everyone has the right to carry.

One of these days someone is going to notice that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms but does not say anything about a right to use. :scrutiny:

FMF Doc
March 14, 2012, 11:40 PM
I wish we all didn't need this law. 2A says "shall not be infringed" Just becuase some misguided courts have ruled that infringment is fine as long as someone sees a need for it, does not change the rational thought of infringement. The right to keep and bear arms is about the only thing that keeps us citizens and not subjects. Just try to find one part of the Bill of Rights that has not been trampled all over:
1-PLEASE...we can burn Old Glory and that is fine, but call someone a terrorist, and they damn near lock you up...and that is just the start.
3-Maybe not "soldiers" but cops...they can go where they want, do what they want and make you leave your own property if they feel you are in the way of their "adminstration of governmental functions"
4-Let alone the claim of terrorism giving police cart blanch to do anything they want, there is always "reasonable suspicion" to search you...and how about the TSA. I remember when they were minimum wage AIRPORT SCREENERS, not federal officers, who by the way have been seen conducting roadside wearches in TN
5-Great...until someone breaths the word terrorism...then all bets are off.
6-see 5
7-see 5
8-see 5
9-means pretty much nothing...since "We the People" pretty much don't have any rights any more.
10-65,000 pages of tax code, EPA, BATFE, NFA, TSA...the list goes on. The federal government has it's hands on everything.

I love this country, but it has been in steady decline, not necesarily economically, but socially and morally, since Wilson, the first progressive, occupied the white house. Every tragedy that has transpired has been used by the egotistical elites in DC to steal our rights. If by sheer accident, they get one right and solidify even one right, let it be the 2nd Ammendment, the right that garuntees the others.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep taking a vote on dinner.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Washington did not talk the British to death with his freedom of speech...he shot them, with his guns.

shiftyer1
March 15, 2012, 02:03 AM
It says keep and bear arms. To me that has always meant own and use guns. They brought their guns to bear.....or he came at me bearing a sword.

I would like to see a national right to carry...............PERIOD.

If I can legally buy and own a gun I should be able to carry it as I see fit. It's a whole lot easier to buy a gun under the table then it is to buy one through an ffl. By the way it's also against the law to steal........that one works well also right?

Owen Sparks
March 15, 2012, 02:09 AM
Involving the federal government is a really bad idea.
Giving the feds the power to grant gun rights means that the feds also assume the power to deny those rights or sevearly restrict them with high fees and regulations.
Ever look at what someone has to go through to legally buy a machine gun?

cyclopsshooter
March 15, 2012, 02:18 AM
since Wilson, the first progressive

Wilson was not the first progressive.

JRH6856
March 15, 2012, 03:19 AM
Wilson was not the first progressive.

No, the first Progressive Party candidate for President of the US was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Woodrow Wilson was the Democratic candidate and won the election and reelection in 1916 as a Democrat, not as a Progressive. Even so, many historians consider Wilson to have been a progressive. Also, some historians think Abraham Lincoln may have proved to actually be the first true progressive President if he had served his full second term.

Alaska444
March 15, 2012, 03:30 AM
My vote is to keep going with the states rights. If you look at a county map of the US, we only have a few areas that you can't get a permit readily. Those remaining areas are falling one after the other. I say, stay the course, keep it at the state level and don't let the Feds in.

The power to regulate is the power to remove concealed carry from Washington D.C.

I vote against this measure.

JRH6856
March 15, 2012, 03:31 AM
It says keep and bear arms. To me that has always meant own and use guns.

Actually not. "keep and bear" is "possess and carry"

Definition of BEAR
transitive verb
1
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)

Other accepted definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear) do not include "use".

I would like to see a national right to carry...............PERIOD.

Agreed, but for such a right to have have a hope of permanence or even longevity, its protection needs to be found in the Constitution, not in legislation which can be reversed after the first election giving the opposition control of Congress.

Protection for a national right to keep and bear (carry) arms can be found in the Constitution as soon as the SCOTUS has cause to seek it. That route is slower, but once found, it would be much harder to lose.

beatledog7
March 15, 2012, 07:11 AM
Keep and Bear arms but not use them? Then what would be the point?

Virtually every (there will always be an exception) responsible, law-abiding gun owner would agree that we have no right to indiscriminately pop off rounds whenever and wherever we choose, and that we have no right to use a firearm in any manner which infringes on the rights of someone else.

The inherent right to defend oneself from serious harm is universally recognized. Using a legally owned device which is designed and built to accomplish that defense is therefore also recognized.

So even if RKBA didn't include the right to "use," it wouldn't matter because we already have the right to self defense.

jackpinesavages
March 15, 2012, 08:30 AM
Any thoughts?

Awesome.

We can all drive around Illinois together. :D

JRH6856
March 15, 2012, 10:11 AM
Keep and Bear arms but not use them? Then what would be the point?

So even if RKBA didn't include the right to "use," it wouldn't matter because we already have the right to self defense.

We have the right to keep and bear arms and the 2A says that right shall not be infringed. SCOTUS has recognized that we have the right to self defense and determined we may keep and bear arms for that purpose. But the right is recognized in the same manner that 2A recognizes the need of arms by the militia.

The states have a right to call upon the militia and for that right to be meaningful, the people must be armed.

The individual has a right to self defense and for that right to be meaningul, the individual must have a right to be armed.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but in the case of the militia, it is to be "well-regulated" meaning the state has the authority to control the use of the arms that the people keep and bear. This authority of the state extends to the individual. It is well accepted in law that the state has the authority to control the use of arms by its citizens.

D.C. chose to try to control the use of arms by prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms. NYC and other jurisdictions have done the same thing. But controlling use in this way infringes on the right to keep and bear.

Heller confirms this at the federal level and Miller confirms that it extends to the state as well. But both ruling are a bit murky as to what aspect of arms govt. is allowed to control and many jurisdictions still seek to control use by regulating possession.

What we need is a clear statement by SCOTUS that controlling use of firearms in this way at any level of govt. is not allowed.

That, at least, is my opinion.

AirForceShooter
March 15, 2012, 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
Support the 14th Amensment and national carry becomes irrelevant.

And I certainly don't want the BATF in this issue

AFS

Which part of the 14th are you talking about?

Personally, I would think that if you truly support the 2nd, then national carry becomes a moot point.

14th is " Full Faith and Credit.

One state MUST recognize the laws of another.

AFS

Ryanxia
March 15, 2012, 10:58 AM
While the power remaining with the states is the most important thing here, I would love to go to different states and not break the law with a concealed firearm.

AirForceShooter
March 15, 2012, 11:01 AM
Full Faith and Credit provided each state will honor the laws of every other state.

That part of the 14th.

AFS

Pensfan
March 15, 2012, 11:18 AM
Great points everyone. What I find most interesting is the diversity of opinions within a group of Pro 2A individuals. My views are coming from a background of 15 years as a lobbyist, all outside of firearms related issues, and being an ardent Constitutionalist / States Rights / Conservative.

I agree, I would love for the USA to not have to worry about the myriad of firearms laws and simply revert to the Constitution and allow us to own whatever firearms we choose and keep the feds out of it. Unfortunately the reality is that we will NEVER get back to that point. I do not understand the mindset that essentially states "If we cannot go back to ONLY the 2A as the rule, vote out EVERY law whether it is good for the 2A or not". It is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In my opinion, a law that brings state by state reciprocity and essentially forces the states to abide by the 14th in terms of where I can carry is a good thing. This is a good first step... then we work on getting Illinois to stop being in violation of the 2A next.

JRH6856
March 15, 2012, 12:39 PM
I suspect that he had a bit too much to do with the expanding of the federal government beyond what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

Well, yes, seeing as how the successful conclusion of the War allowed the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Ole Coot
March 15, 2012, 12:56 PM
Anyone besides me see it a little strange that this bill was introduced by two Democratic Senators? Being a resident of WV our junior senator has always been pro gun. He has been pro gun all his life and as our governor he was doing what he thought was good for our state, love him or hate him.

Spats McGee
March 15, 2012, 07:28 PM
I just can't agree with the NRA that this is a good idea. This bill would have no effect on states that do not issue CCLs, and opens the door for federal regulation as to standards for issuance.

FMF Doc
March 15, 2012, 09:38 PM
I just can't agree with the NRA that this is a good idea. This bill would have no effect on states that do not issue CCLs, and opens the door for federal regulation as to standards for issuance.
The door is always open to new federal regulation. Even a SCOTUS decision is only temporary. The next year, it might be looked at again, and reversed, or curtailed. I also agree with PENSFAN, that we will never be back to the good ol' days. The system is so broke it can't be fixed. If 2A was appropriately recognized, there would be no issues. I see national reciprocity as the best to be made in the broken system.

Oh, and as of today, there is only 1 state that does not have some form of CCL---IL, and I have very little need to go there. And fee carry states are covered by the language.

Rail Driver
March 15, 2012, 09:41 PM
The NRA has not always had our best interests in mind. Like anyone (or anything) else, they do things in what they perceive to be in their own self-interest. If we are lucky, maybe their self-interest coincides with our self-interest.
I have less and less trust in the NRA as time goes on. Think about it... If gun control were ended and the 2a supporters actually managed to win the war, there would be no more need for the NRA beyond training and posterity. It's in the NRA's best interest to fight gun control with one hand while supporting it with the other. They're a for-profit organization, a business like any other.

Spats McGee
March 16, 2012, 09:52 AM
I just can't agree with the NRA that this is a good idea. This bill would have no effect on states that do not issue CCLs, and opens the door for federal regulation as to standards for issuance.
The door is always open to new federal regulation. Even a SCOTUS decision is only temporary. The next year, it might be looked at again, and reversed, or curtailed. . . .
I recognize that. Just because that door is open doesn't mean I'm interested in opening it any wider, though.

FMF Doc
March 16, 2012, 10:07 AM
I suppose I am just less concerned about what bad might come from this than I am about what good will come of it. Any opening can be exploited, no matter how big or small. Rather than worry about that, I'll take every advantage I can under the rules, no matter how crummy they are in totaltiy, and try to live a happy life.

Spats McGee
March 16, 2012, 10:14 AM
That's fair enough. I stand to lose more than gain by a federal carry bill. My permit is recognized in 39 states (if I counted correctly), so I can already carry everywhere that I would conceivably travel at this point. If I need to visit one of the 11 states which do not recognize my permit, I'll look into one of the non-resident permits.

AlexanderA
March 16, 2012, 05:29 PM
Just to quibble, the "full faith and credit" clause is not in the 14th Amendment. It's in Article IV, section 1 of the main body of the Constitution.

Also, it doesn't mean that every state has to recognize all the laws of every other state. It has more to do with "ministerial acts" and mutual enforcement of judgements.

And, the Supreme Court, in the McDonald v. Chicago case, specifically rejected using the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment to "incorporate" the 2nd Amendment as regarding the states. Only Justice Thomas took that position. The rest of the Court majority based their decision on "substantive due process."

If you enjoyed reading about "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!