This just in from the NRA !!!

[armedpolak]

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

The Stearns/Boucher Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill


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.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have "shall issue" permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered "discretionary issue" permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "life" is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "security."

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person "may repel force by force" in self-defense, and is "entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force" as needed to prevent "great bodily injury or death." (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for "protective purposes" in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as "a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms."

Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM

Anyone holding your breath on this one?

 

[CDignition]

New Jersey is gonna hate this one,lol..

 

[ccarnel]

This would be a huge step forwards.

 

[Geronimo45]

Great news. The folks up north have cold weather, and have teriffic concealment garments - but they're not allowed to conceal.

Heh. Bloomberg would have apoplexy.

 

[General Geoff]

I could see the commie states going ballistic over this if it actually passes. I would go so far as to say they'd start paying gangs and drug lords to have frivolous shootouts just so they can point and say "see? the guns are hitting the streets, nobody's safe!!"

I also see the local and state police of said commie states ARRESTING and detaining people who are carrying from another state, anyway.

And furthermore, I see the commie states banning handguns outright, which would create a legal paradox in that you're allow to carry a concealed firearm, but you're not allowed to carry a concealable firearm.

 

[Caimlas]

General, if it passes (BIG if, with the Dems in power - at the least, it's a good way to 'out' the so-called "pro-gun Democrats" as not being such) that's something I most certainly suspect will happen. At the very least, they'll get you under existing laws about lacking a permit to own a pistol, which many states (such as New York) have had on the books for quite a long time.

Cars kill many times more people per year than guns. Cars do not require a license to own - they're just property, afterall; just like guns. Yet, guns require a permit to own. Somehow, this doesn't make sense.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I'll be darned

Well, lookee there now.

Must be global warming.

 

[Soybomb]

Man its a good thing those friends of the 2nd amendment republicans and Democrats didn't introduce this when the legislature was controlled by republicans.

Its a pipe dream boys and as someone who lives in Illinois dare I even say I don't think I would like something like this. It seems like something that really should be a states issue to me in a way. Its in the judiciary committee and there it shall stay. John Conyers is so far in bed with people like brady and the vpc....

 

[kd7nqb]

so we could sit here and complain about how it wont happen OR we could contact or legislators and say it should. Advocacy works, I have seen it many times.

Also if WE as progun bloggers start publicly saying it wont happen then we are sealing our own fate.

 

[Robert Hairless]

kd7nqb:

so we could sit here and complain about how it wont happen OR we could contact or legislators and say it should. Advocacy works, I have seen it many times.

Also if WE as progun bloggers start publicly saying it wont happen then we are sealing our own fate.

Agreed. Sane, rational advocacy does work. It's what gun owners should be doing and how they should behave.

Too many commentators, too few workers.

 

[Prince Yamato]

If this passes, we should organize a THR NYC sightseeing trip.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Quote: "Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995."

He's introduced the bill every year for 12 years.

If it didn't happen 'gun-loving' Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Oval Office... then it is not going to happen now.

No way, no how, no when. Thanks Republican's, for not passing this bill (or one like it) when you had the ability.

 

[Erebus]

One thing it wil do is prove who really is out to protect legal gun owners rights. When Brady, Bloomberg, etc freak out about this it will prove they are not about stopping illegal gun ownership but stopping all gun ownership.

We need to get behind this early and write our legislators. I can't wait to see who votes against this. It will be very telling and prove much of what we have known forever. Many claim to support legal gun ownership when they really don't.

If you support people who legally own guns there is no reason to vote against this.

 

[gunsmith]

lets at least try it again!

If this passes, we should organize a THR NYC sightseeing trip.

I volunteer to be tour guide, the have 24 hr indoor pistol ranges and some really
good restaurants.

 

[crashresidue]

Cheers,

If this passes - it'll the straw that makes HI declare the "Monarchy" is now in effect.

Can't wait!!! I've never fought against a rebellion within the USA.

cr

 

[mike101]

Quote: New Jersey is gonna hate this one,lol..

If all this does is give Lautenburg nightmares, I'll be happy.

Seriously, if this does pass, I can just imagine the grief people with out of state permits will be put through, here in the Peoples' Republic, where virtually no one from in-state has a carry permit. I wouldn't expect too much trouble from the Staties. They tend to be a lot more intelligent, and familiar with the actual law, than the small-town cops around here. I would expect HUGE hassles from the local cops, who tend to do what they want, and don't care much about the law, anyway.

Yeah, it's that bad here, and getting worse all the time. I fully expect NJ to be the first state that bans handguns altogether. That will take care of this proposal.

 

[Waitone]

Could be a poker chip.

DiFi to NRA--our side wants a new assault weapon ban (or insert any anti-gun proposal)

NRA to DiFi--Whadda ya give up? May we suggest national reciprocity?

Yeah, I know! I'm cynical, but don't make me wrong. It makes me a cynical.

 

[Highland Ranger]

The question is, for those of us in combloc states that have out of state licenses (like a Florida non-resident), will those be good in our own states?

 

[rangermonroe]

One thing it wil do is prove who really is out to protect legal gun owners rights. When Brady, Bloomberg, etc freak out about this it will prove they are not about stopping illegal gun ownership but stopping all gun ownership.

Yep.

I have a slight constitutional problem with this one, so you all set me straight. What gives the Feds the right to tell the state what to do on this issue? Remember the 55mph speed limit? Helmet laws?

Do you really want minimum federal requirements for mandatory CCW permit training? How about 80-120 hours? Annual 'requalification' at a govt approved range on your dime?

If the feds are going to insist that one state recognize another, I'll be that there will be minimum standards that no one but NYS will like.

Currently, SC doesn't recognize GA permits because they have a higher training requirement than do we.

 

[Stauble]

good point and bad point
good point- this bill is has a Democrats name attached to it, so that shows that there are at least a few pro-gun Democrats on capital hill

bad point- its up to the speaker of the house to determine which bills even make it to the floor of the house to debate.

need i remind you who our speaker is?

 

[Lupinus]

even if it were to pass you think states like NJ would follow it?

They wont even follow simple federal law that says you can transport a firearm across state lines so long as your destination is not within that state.

 

[antsi]

-----antsi---------
No way, no how, no when. Thanks Republican's, for not passing this bill (or one like it) when you had the ability.
------------------

Having a slim majority in the Senate doesn't mean you get to do anything and everything you want to do. As a practical matter, you have to have a 60 votes supermajority to get anything controversial passed. If there are 51 Republicans, that means they'd need 9 Democrats to cross party lines and support the bill.

The Republicans never had a 60 votes supermajority in the Senate, and they never had 9 Democrats wanting to cross party lines to support nationwide carry.

And, of course, there were probably always 2 or 3 RINOs from majority Democrat states who wouldn't have supported it, so in the end you would really have needed 11 or 12 Democrats to vote against their party to get this thing passed.

In the end, the politics of a bill like this just aren't very favorable because the states with strong pro-carry majorities already have carry laws on the books, and the people who live there can already carry. A lot of those folks live in pro-carry regions, where they can also carry in their neighboring states. For most gun-totin' folks, a bill like this is not going to change their lives very much - so the support on the pro-gun side is likely to be somewhat lukewarm.

At the same time, most of the people affected by a bill like this are the anti's living in Blue states who are going to be very violently opposed to it. The states where you can't carry are states with strong anti-gun voter majorities.

If you are trying to pass a bill where the people on your side are going to be somewhat lukewarm in their support, and the people on the other side are going to be totally riled up and foaming at the mouth, it's going to be an uphill fight.

Personally, I'd love to see a bill like this pass because although I live in a pro-gun Red state, my wife's family lives in a neighboring anti-gun blue state and we visit there often. I'd love to keep my gun on me when we cross the state line.

At the same time, I have to realistically recognize that the stars are pretty much aligned against this one.

 

[ilcylic]

I have a slight constitutional problem with this one, so you all set me straight. What gives the Feds the right to tell the state what to do on this issue? Remember the 55mph speed limit? Helmet laws?

I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to know whether I agree with you or not. I know there is wording in the Constitution requiring states to recognize contracts made in other states (possibly as part of the much and oft abused "commerce clause") which is part of why my NM driver's license is good in CA, in spite of the fact that the test I took to get that license was a joke compared to the one that people in CA go through to get theirs. Likewise my auto registration is good in NJ, in spite of the fact that I don't get one of their ludicrous yearly inspections done.

This seems like it's along the same lines to me. So, while I'm a big fan of states rights over federal centralization, I think this might be one of the few cases where the feds are on the constitutional side of things.

 

[Manedwolf]

Great news. The folks up north have cold weather, and have teriffic concealment garments - but they're not allowed to conceal.

Hey now, don't generalize. SOME of are are!

There's a band of stupidity around MD to NY and MA, but when you get above that, to NH, ME and VT, peoples' heads clear, and they're allowed to carry.

 

[xd9fan]

Now that Federalism is out of the way........