National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill?


PDA






namvet68
March 19, 2013, 01:27 PM
I thought that I had read that the bill for national reciprocity for a CCL had moved forward but haven't read anything since that time. What is the current status of the bill?

If you enjoyed reading about "National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
namvet68
March 19, 2013, 01:47 PM
Thanks, I guess I got just the first half of the story.

LNK
March 19, 2013, 02:08 PM
As much as we would like the idea of national right to carry reciprocity, I am a little leery of the federal government taking states power away from them. We might be setting a bad precedent. I think keeping the power in the states is the best thing for America....Just my $.02

LNK

X-Rap
March 19, 2013, 03:07 PM
Even though I am from CO I lean much more to keeping things in the hands of the individual states, we can fix what is getting screwed up here much easier than doing it at a national level. I say don't let that camel get its nose under the tent.

Speedo66
March 19, 2013, 03:37 PM
It's already in effect, the requirements are a little stringent though. :rolleyes:

First, get a job as a full time LEO. You're good to go anywhere in the country.

Second way, work at that LEO job for at least ten years, then retire, or retire with a line of duty injury. Qualify at a range once a year to your state's LE standards, carry a document certifying that along with your retired ID, and you're good to go anywhere in the country.

Google H.R.218 for further instructions.

Seriously, I'm shocked that bill was ever passed, but I have to say I appreciate it.

To me that means there's hope for private citizens.

JRH6856
March 19, 2013, 04:08 PM
Any firearms regulation at the federal level undermines the 2nd Amendment. We need to push for less regulation at the federal level, not more.

X-Rap
March 19, 2013, 04:19 PM
If it truely could be recognized like that of a drivers or marriage license is for those over 18 yrs old then I would not be opposed but to have it allowed in all 50 would gut the rights of the few states that are very easy shall issue or better yet constituional carry and raise the standards to those of the most restrictive if it were to be allowed IMO. Even if it were to maintain the laws as regulated by the states I feel we are so close to reserprocity within the shall issue states and very close to running the board on shall issue nationwide that the fed can only ad poor consequences by getting in the game this late.

beatledog7
March 19, 2013, 05:17 PM
If it truely could be recognized like that of a drivers or marriage license is for those over 18 yrs old then...

You do realize these things are recognized at the pleasure of the states and not by Federal mandate, right?

X-Rap
March 19, 2013, 05:30 PM
The fed gov. recognizes every states drivers and marriage licence in DC and there is recerprocity among all of the states.
My point is that getting the fed involved is a can of worms akin to how the commerce clause and truck divers. Get ready because marriage is about to get turned on its head just like health care did.
I want concealed carry at the pleasure of the states just like an individual drivers lic. not like a CDL for an over the road trucker.

JRH6856
March 19, 2013, 06:04 PM
I agree with X-Rap. llowing the federal government to be involved at all just opens a large can of worms that can easily be a can of rattlesnakes. What the federal government is given the authority to allow, it also has the authority to prohibit.

beatledog7
March 19, 2013, 06:22 PM
I agree as well that any federal gun law is a bad idea, and never said otherwise.

Nickel Plated
March 19, 2013, 07:38 PM
I have to disagree with most people here on the state's rights issue.

If we are going to claim that the right to carry is protected by the Second Amendment then it should apply throughout the country. Like I said before, it's called the Constitution of the United States not the Constitution of Whoever Feels Like Recognizing It. We always talk of all the things the federal goverment doesn't have the authority to do and I generally agree with them. But one of the few authorities it does have is protecting the Constitution and making sure it applies equally throughout the nation. A state does not have the "right" to deprive you of your right to carry just because you're from some other state any more than they have the "right" to say "Sorry your right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers does not apply here because you're from NY. States rights :neener:"

On top of that I don't see how the feds are given any more power under this. They do not issue the permit and they do not set the standards for it. The permit is still issued by the individual states, just like they already are. And the individual states set the standard you must meet to get that permit, just like they already do. The feds just say that if you got your CCW in Ohio than it is valid in NYC or Chicago or Wisconsin as much as it is in Ohio. It just gets rid of the arbitrary patchwork of which states recognize the rights of which citizens.

I also support it because it would give another base for legal action against some may issue jurisdictions like NYC which require you to provide a reason why you need a permit while basically saying that no regular person has a "valid" enough reason for one. Thus essentially denying the right to carry to their population. If some tourist from Alabama can carry in NYC while the actual residents of the city can not, that sets a pretty good stage for challenging the whole may-issue system.

Captains1911
March 19, 2013, 08:46 PM
The people here who are against it must live in the center of their free state and never travel out of it, or never have a need to travel to non-free states. I for one am not that fortunate and am all for national reciprocity. However I'm afraid at what the requirements might be if such a thing was ever passed. For now I'll keep my fingers crossed.

JRH6856
March 19, 2013, 08:52 PM
If we are going to claim that the right to carry is protected by the Second Amendment then it should apply throughout the country. Like I said before, it's called the Constitution of the United States not the Constitution of Whoever Feels Like Recognizing It. We always talk of all the things the federal goverment doesn't have the authority to do and I generally agree with them. But one of the few authorities it does have is protecting the Constitution and making sure it applies equally throughout the nation.

And that responsibility should fall upon the courts, not the Congress. If the right is protected by the Constitution, then it is already protected and requires no new law to protect it. Calling on Congress to pass such a law implies that it is up to Congress to determine whether or not the right is to be protected or denied protection...if as you say, they "feel like recognizing it."

AlbertH
March 19, 2013, 08:54 PM
Congress could write and pass legislation that provides for a standardized set of requirements for a CPL but not make it mandatory thus allowing the States decision as to whether they not only wish to follow those requirements but also leave the states with the responsibility of administering the permits and its reciprocity with other states.

Since the vast majority of the states already have similar requirements, no additional changes would be necessary in most instances.

For those of you who are finding that your own resident CPL is not widely accepted. Take a look at the leniency that is allowed in procuring your license compared to the states who's license are widely accepted.

Trying to get other states to reduce their requirements instead of getting your own state falling into line with their requirements is a losing battle.

Just my thoughts,

AL

BTW the letters I have been receiving from my Republican congressmen have been indicating that this is one piece of legislation that is widely accepted across the board and may very well pass.

JRH6856
March 19, 2013, 09:15 PM
We seem to want to have our cake and eat it too. On the one hand, gun owners scream that Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from regulating the right to keep and bear arms, and we then turn around and call for Congress to regulate that same right. :scrutiny:

And make no mistake, any law affecting the right to keep and bear arms is a regulation.

Now, you can argue that Congress is only prohibited from infringing the right, not protecting or expanding it. But anything Congress has the authority to do, it has the authority to undo. Which means a right so expanded, can be infringed by repealing the legislation that expanded it. As i said earlier, a can of rattlesnakes that is best kept sealed.

JRH6856
March 19, 2013, 09:21 PM
Congress could write and pass legislation that provides for a standardized set of requirements for a CPL but not make it mandatory thus allowing the States decision as to whether they not only wish to follow those requirements but also leave the states with the responsibility of administering the permits and its reciprocity with other states.

Since the vast majority of the states already have similar requirements, no additional changes would be necessary in most instances.

For those of you who are finding that your own resident CPL is not widely accepted. Take a look at the leniency that is allowed in procuring your license compared to the states who's license are widely accepted.

Trying to get other states to reduce their requirements instead of getting your own state falling into line with their requirements is a losing battle.

Just my thoughts,

AL

BTW the letters I have been receiving from my Republican congressmen have been indicating that this is one piece of legislation that is widely accepted across the board and may very well pass.

If the Democrats will vote for it, then it is because of the losing battle you described. They probably think it can only work if ALL states conform to the requirements of the most restrictive state(s). Which one would that be? Illinois? New York? California? Illyorkifornia?

BTW, NO state is lenient. Some are just less restrictive than others. There is no leniency in restricting a right.

Captains1911
March 19, 2013, 09:45 PM
The states I was referring to don't accept any out of state permits, not just mine.

Coop45
March 19, 2013, 10:07 PM
I trust Austin more than DC.

steelerdude99
March 20, 2013, 03:35 AM
I don't see how such a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work if any jurisdiction has the ability to ignore the law.

Case in point: A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage. A simple idea, right? New York and a few other states feel that they have the freedom to just ignore it. So, until such a law "has teeth", local and state jurisdictions will just ignore.

See: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx about half way down, see "JURISDICTIONS WITH SPECIAL RULES".

chuck

rondog
March 20, 2013, 04:05 AM
Folks, the LAST thing we need is national concealed carry reciprocity! We don't need the Feds knowing who has one, and it would require or lead to gun registrations too. Please don't even dream of Nationwide CCW! It would very quickly be turned against us.

kwguy
March 20, 2013, 04:56 AM
I'm very leery of the federal gov't having anything to do nationally with CCW. If they want to have a law, it should be this simple:

"All states will be 'shall issue' states."

"All states will honor the CCW permits issued by other states."

"End of message."

"Out"

Or something along those lines. Since that won't happen, they need to stay the heck out of it.

AlbertH
March 20, 2013, 09:18 AM
I don't see how such a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work if any jurisdiction has the ability to ignore the law.

Case in point: A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage. A simple idea, right? New York and a few other states feel that they have the freedom to just ignore it. So, until such a law "has teeth", local and state jurisdictions will just ignore.

See: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx about half way down, see "JURISDICTIONS WITH SPECIAL RULES".

chuck
read the law closer. as long as you do not STOP during your travel through that state or city, you are covered by Federal law. Now does that mean you won't get arrested and charged should you get stopped and are carrying? Are you willing to take that chance?

I personally would do my best to avoid the area in question during my travels. I have no intentions of violating handgun laws regardless of whether I may feel they are constitutional or not for I do not have the cash to take a case through the court system for some one else's benefit. DO YOU?

Look back into the history of the U S Supreme Court decisions concerning 2A. 2A states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" yet Supreme court history shows that they allowed states to regulate weapons ever since the second amendment was signed.

rodinal220
March 20, 2013, 10:40 AM
US CONSTITUTION

Bill of Rights

Amendment II

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Why do we regulate(infringe) the Second amendment more than the others??Why do I need a plastic card to carry a firearm and that card is treated like a DL??

The gun free zone and posted signage thing is outrageous.Thats like saying certain races or other persons cannot enter.If I can carry my newspaper and wear a Star of David around my neck in your store or business,I can carry my firearm.

steelerdude99
March 20, 2013, 01:17 PM
read the law closer. as long as you do not STOP during your travel through that state or city, you are covered by Federal law. Now does that mean you won't get arrested and charged should you get stopped and are carrying? Are you willing to take that chance?

...

AlbertH,
I fully agree with you; it should not be a problem. BUT (per the NRA-ILA site) travelers have been detained. That is why they are posting this "beware". I was shocked when I read the whole page a while back and kept it as a book mark. If there is no or little consequence for trying, they'll try to enforce their laws. Even IF you win and are not successfully prosecuted, there is a good chance that whatever firearms you are traveling with will never be returned. Then add in the lawyer fees.

These states are not going to be friendly to gun owners.

chuck

AlbertH
March 20, 2013, 04:41 PM
If the Democrats will vote for it, then it is because of the losing battle you described. They probably think it can only work if ALL states conform to the requirements of the most restrictive state(s). Which one would that be? Illinois? New York? California? Illyorkifornia?

BTW, NO state is lenient. Some are just less restrictive than others. There is no leniency in restricting a right.

The U S Constitution Articles of incorporation give the states the RIGHT TO REGULATE. plain and simple.. I can show it to you if you like.

Then along with rights come responsibilities.

A few states do not require fingerprinting nor photos on their CPL. with the advancement of computers and printers it is rather easy to falsify one of these documents.

Some states have shall issue leaving the decision up to the local sheriff so if he don't like you, you don't get a permit.

Maybe some of you feel that is fair, but wouldn't a true "Patriot" demand that the entire U S Constitution be followed and not just parts.

My Michigan resident CPL is accepted in 40 states, Unfortunately Michigan has decided to accept all Resident CPL permits except Illinois. I have half a notion to start a writing campaign to get our attorney general to change that policy to the "if you do, I will policy" that some states abide by. Especially considering that Michigan does require its CPL applicants to provide fingerprints, and to take handgun safety classes.

What is fair for the goose is also fair for the gander.

just my thoughts,

Al

JRH6856
March 20, 2013, 06:00 PM
The U S Constitution Articles of incorporation give the states the RIGHT TO REGULATE. plain and simple.. I can show it to you if you like.

What are these "Articles of Incorporation" to which you refer?

The US Constitution gives nothing to the states. NOTHING! The Constitution is all about what the states "give" to the federal government.

JTHunter
March 21, 2013, 01:20 AM
LNK said:
As much as we would like the idea of national right to carry reciprocity, I am a little leery of the federal government taking states power away from them. We might be setting a bad precedent. I think keeping the power in the states is the best thing for America....Just my $.02

That would require national registration. We know where that could go, don't we. :(

AlbertH
March 21, 2013, 08:43 AM
What are these "Articles of Incorporation" to which you refer?

The US Constitution gives nothing to the states. NOTHING! The Constitution is all about what the states "give" to the federal government.
Sorry If I don't use the exact definition or name for the U S constitution itself, its before the amendments and I mistakenly said that the states rights are in the constitution instead of in the 10th amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The state legislatures are an arm of the people and thus granted the right to enact state laws

Should the citizens of said state disagree with those laws, they can try and overturn them through a ballot proposal or through the court system. Beware though, depending on the states constitution, a ballot proposal may not work. This past election, we Michiganders shot down a law by ballot vote, within 12 weeks congress and the governor passed an almost identical law but added an appropriations amendment to it so, WE THE PEOPLE cannot legally bring the law up as a ballot proposal again.

Just my interpretation

Al

JRH6856
March 21, 2013, 04:17 PM
Albert, tour interpretation may be a bit skewed. The Constitution "grants" nothing to the states. It is a document whereby the states grant certain powers and authority to the federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't grant anything. It is simply a statement by the states confirming that powers not delegated or that the states have agreed shall be surrendered, are reserved and retained by those who hold them originally--the states or the people themselves.

The various state Constitutions operate similarly, in which the people delegate and/or surrender to the state, certain powers and authority to govern their actions and interactions with each other.

AlbertH
March 21, 2013, 05:11 PM
Albert, tour interpretation may be a bit skewed. The Constitution "grants" nothing to the states. It is a document whereby the states grant certain powers and authority to the federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't grant anything. It is simply a statement by the states confirming that powers not delegated or that the states have agreed shall be surrendered, are reserved and retained by those who hold them originally--the states or the people themselves.

The various state Constitutions operate similarly, in which the people delegate and/or surrender to the state, certain powers and authority to govern their actions and interactions with each other.


Read the 10'th amendment a bit closer, and then do some research.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States(i.e. Federal Laws), are reserved to the States respectively(i.e. State laws), or to the people".(i.e. Individual rights)


Either the Feds have totalitarian authority which you seem to be proclaiming by saying that neither the constitution nor the 10th amendment grants the states any rights, or the States are granted some rights which is why they are allowed to enact state laws.

Sorry, but you can't use both sides of the coin.

The wording within the 10th amendment provides the individual states with rights and thus the ability to govern and to to create laws.



Al

JRH6856
March 21, 2013, 06:14 PM
Either the Feds have totalitarian authority which you seem to be proclaiming by saying that neither the constitution nor the 10th amendment grants the states any rights, or the States are granted some rights which is why they are allowed to enact state laws.

Sorry, but you can't use both sides of the coin.

Apparently we are not using the same currency. You keep saying that the Constitution grants rights to the states and to the people. It does no such thing, in either the original articles or in the amendments. The Constitution was not created by the federal government, the Constitution was created by the states (which in turn are creations of the people) in order to create the federal government. The creation can not and does not "grant rights" to the creator. It works the other way around.

The creators (the states), by way of the instrument of creation (the Constitution) delegate and surrender certain specified powers and authority to the creation (the federal government) and at the same time, confirm that all powers and authority not so delegated or surrendered are reserved and retained by the creators (the states and the people).

This was the nation created by means of the Constitution. Under this form, the states were sovereign. They were answerable to no higher authority for what occurred within their borders. This sovereignty was limited only by the Constitutions and Charters whereby the states were themselves created by the people residing within them. The federal government under the Constitution of the United States had no authority in any matter arising within the borders of any state, nor did any state have legitimate interest in matters solely within another state.

These conditions prevailed until 1866 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. By this ratification, the states surrendered a bit of their sovereignty to the federal government as the amendment created the status of Citizen of the United States, and for the first time, the federal government had legitimate interest the conditions within a state, and the authority to pursue that interest.

But, the underlying facts have not changed. The federal government legitimately has only the power and authority which it has been granted and except when acting under that authority, has no power or authority to grant or regulate what the states or the people never surrendered.

brickeyee
March 22, 2013, 03:33 PM
The feds have no power to force such a thing.

Zak Smith
March 24, 2013, 06:06 PM
AlbertH,

You are factually wrong. The USSC has ruled that certain amendments are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and apply to the states. McDonald v. Chicago established that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the statse.

beatledog7
March 24, 2013, 06:39 PM
The federal government has no legitimate power to regulate RKBA, court decisions to the contrary notwithstanding. I personally find wording in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing so as well. I have explained that here before.

When we allow the personal political agendas of robed men and women to usurp the clear and obvious wording of 2A, we are surrendering liberty that we were meant by God and nature to possess. Bad plan, my friends. If we let them infringe on RKBA in spite of the clear "shall not," what are we going to be able to stop them from doing?

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