H.R.1243- National CCW bill introduced

Status
Not open for further replies.
7

71Commander

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
2,335
Location
Headin back to Johnson City
http://thomas.loc.gov

To amend title 18 of the 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

March 10, 2005

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. HALL, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANNON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. OTTER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SODREL, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18 of the 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 2005'.

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 926A 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, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is--

`(1) 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; or

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, 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 provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 
Last edited:
Imagine that this bill passes and it is VASTLY more restrictive many of the state CCW laws (lets say it requires CLEO sign-off). I can imagine that a lot of states are simply going to drop their own concealed carry rules and go with the federal version (why pay to mantain their own system when the feds will do it for them). This would leave us in a worse position than when we started.
 
Reciprocity should be our goal, not nationalization.
Click to expand...

I agree with your premise Hawkeye, but reciprocity with states like CA, NJ, MA, IL, MD, NY and other politically similar socialist paradises aren't ever going to have reciprocity agreements without having their arms twisted at the federal level.
The "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution should be enough to have reciprocity with the States..........Hell, the 2nd Amendment should be enough. However it is not, and it won't be until there is federal legislation that requires them to. Then will come the lawsuits from the anti-gun states asserting states rights. By the time it all gets resolved, most of us'll be long dead and gone. :rolleyes:
Without knowing the text of the proposed legislation, one can only speculate what the sponsor has in mind for national CC. The simplest way is to require the states to recognize a CHL from another state under the full faith and credit clause, regardless of whether that state issues their own, whether they like it or not.
A clause allowing an out-of-state CHL holder to file harrassment lawsuits against anti states/agencies probably wouldn't hurt either.
 
I'm not crazy about the intel implications of this bill, which could mean the creation a federal database of all CHP permitholders in the country. However, I'm not naive enough to think they can't get the info anyway. As for registration and confiscation sometime down the road, that too can happen anyway with the current system (in that scenario, the Feds just push the grunt work out to the states ... which, come to think of it, is probably what they'd do in either case).
 
TennTucker,

Understood and agreed. I use the term States rights (for lack of a better term) in the context that individual state legislatures or the people they"re supposed to represent, best know what works for each individual state without federal interference........ideally.
"States rights" (plural) as most folk understand it refer to more specifically to the individuals of a state when refering to State gov vs Fed gov and that "state's powers" (possessive) when specific to state gov itself.
Make sense? :confused:
 
Be careful of what you wish for and unintended consequences.

I agree that full state reciprocity is the way to go, just look at the mess that HR 218 is currently going thru, many states are just outright refusing to issue the proper credentials/paperwork to allow even active duty and sworn LEO’s to carry across stateliness.

If they are reluctant to allow cops to carry what makes you think they will allow non-LEO’s to carry?


:confused:
 
I agree with your premise Hawkeye, but reciprocity with states like CA, NJ, MA, IL, MD, NY and other politically similar socialist paradises aren't ever going to have reciprocity agreements without having their arms twisted at the federal level.
Click to expand...
I am a PRK resident with a CCW. You don't need to do this thing for my sake.

I think a better strategy is to let the citizens of these screwed up states fight for their rights. If they can't win, then the citizens of those states have spoken and either they will keep fighting or move. The last thing I want to see happen is one of the free states give up their freedom for the morons in this state who chose to live in chains.

If you are really that concerned about CCW, you will either move or carry illegally. I don't think this is worth other people losing what they have so people in Los Angeles can carry. Its called cutting off your nose to spite the face.

We will see what the bill says. I am all for reciprocity. Leave the states alone.
 
We do NOT want the feds involved on this. As pointed out, working the reciprocity agreements between states is the way to go.

Imagine, if you will, the fed bureaucracy taking this over. As TFW pointed out ... the results of HR 218 are ample demonstration of how well a federal mandate goes over here ...

I'd bet there'd be several more unintended consquences, such as:

1. The list of places CCW is restricted would grow and grow and grow -- no more carry nationwide on public transportation, any public buildings (i.e., libraries, museums), public parks, restaurants, etc.

2. Cost to the licensee would increase dramatically -- justified by the government due to increased management costs of the program, nationwide database sharing ...

3. The requirements for training and testing would probably have to be standardized nationwide. Right now, my state (Washington) has no training or testing requirement ... I'd bet the national standard would equal or exceed whatever state right now has the strictest training AND testing requirements. This of course -- most cost to the applicant/licensee.

4. The states that currently have no CCW provisions (Wisconsin, et al) would ensure the program would have so many restrictions entailed, it'd probably end up that ALL of us would be able to carry concealed ONLY in our own homes, on our own property or in our own cars .... So it would end up not being an improvement at all, rather additional restrictions with increased cost and probably, more stringent penalties for violations as ...

5. Unlawful CCW (without a permit or violation of restricted area clauses) could conceivably then become a federal crime.
 
I agree that full state reciprocity is the way to go, just look at the mess that HR 218 is currently going thru, many states are just outright refusing to issue the proper credentials/paperwork to allow even active duty and sworn LEO’s to carry across stateliness.
Click to expand...

Been there. Done that. Totally frustrated.

The Sheriff of my former department absolutely refuses to do anything without the state attorney general's blessing. The best I could get was a certificate that says I have demonstrated firearms proficiency with my personal weapon with regards to H.R. 218. It is not on department letterhead. It does not certify me as meeting all H.R. 218 requirements. I do have a retired ID card that says I am Ok to carry a firearm concealed in California. So hopefully the ID card and the certificate will be looked upon kindly by most peace officers in most states.

I do not hope for much consideration in states like NY, MD, or IL.

Pilgrim
 
"Actual text has not been posted yet."

That could be a bad thing. Not putting the text of the bill to public scrutiny...It could be they don't want the text to be made public until after a vote. It seems this is a common ploy these days with unpopular bills. Either the don't want to hear the PO'd gun control freaks if the bill truely mirrors the rights of the 2nd amendment, or the rest of us if the bill is more restrictive than what we have now, as suggestioned by many of those above. Maybe a mail/email blitz is in order to pressure for the text to be made public?
 
Superficially I have been all for this - in principle. However - right now - it seems a dark area whereby doors could actually be closed. Much more needs to be known regarding the wording ... and if it was ''swept thru'' we could suddenly find things a lot more restrictive.

More I think about it - the more I want states to fight it out, where no CCW exists thus far - and win that individually. Then let the reciprocity process continue further - may be slow but, probably much more predictable and less damaging. Even MD, after all the noble folk's efforts recently, is beginning to look like it may come good.
 
Look up HR 990 from last year's Congress. Here's what HR 1243 (assuming this is the SAFE act).

1) If you have a license from one state, you can carry in all other states.

2) If you have the ability to carry a handgun concealed per state statute, then you can carry on your driver license or state ID card.

3) If you carry concealed in a place that allows concealed carry, you carry per the rules of being a licensee of that particular state.

4) if you carry concealed in a place that prohibits concealed carry, you must not carry in areas that are prohibited in the state statute, except of course for the general concealed carry prohibition are not applicable to you. You see, even in Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Nebraska, there are other laws besides the concealed weapons prohibition that states that "It is prohibted to carry any firearm here".

There is no concealed firearm license registration at the federal level with the SAFE act. Nor is there any "federalization" or setups of "national standards" like with the Stearns bill for state that prohibit concealed carry.

This merely enforces Article 4, Section 1 of the US constitution.
 
go here here

and click through

the link posted is a temporary file that is automatically deleted by the server

Note that my A rated representative has affixed her name as a cosponsor. I will write her a thank you letter. I wonder if she will think it weird someone already contacted her lol internet stalker.

Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] (introduced 3/10/2005) Cosponsors (29)
Latest Major Action: 3/10/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(29), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)


Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/10/2005
Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 3/10/2005
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 3/10/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/10/2005
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 3/10/2005
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 3/10/2005
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 3/10/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 3/10/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/10/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 3/10/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 3/10/2005
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 3/10/2005
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 3/10/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 3/10/2005
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/10/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 3/10/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/10/2005
Click to expand...
 
I am a PRK resident with a CCW. You don't need to do this thing for my sake.
Click to expand...

Please forgive any perceived snideness on my part. Just wanted to get this out of the way early, but I'm going to call you out and find fault with your statement. Okay? Great!

Some of us live in areas that will NEVER ever change for the better. It sounds like you are saying that since you got your CCW, that anyone else who either can't change the "will" of 3 million+ people (that's about how many people live in the Bay Area Collective) doesn't deserve to have a permit. It just doesn't work that way. Around here, you have to get one or two people, and slowly change their minds, get them used to firearms, and to look past all the VPC trash that gets spewed and accepted as gospel truth without a fight. The federal level is the only way within the next 5 years that I see the California BS changing. You are lucky enough to live in a county that permits it's vassals to experience the honor of being to defend themselves. I live in Alameda County, home of Don Perata, and "we" keep sending him back! "We" voted for Cruz Bustamante in the recall and Kerry in the election in overwhelming numbers. "We" aren't going to change short of some horrible tragedy. I imagine that Illinois, and Kansas, and Nebraska and Hawaii are in similar conditons. This needs to happen on a federal level, where it can't be appealed to the 9th Circuit, and it needs to have a clause that states it only be enacted in states that do not have "shall issue" already.

That said, you live in Kern County?
 
Hey, if freed slaves could bear arms, why cant law abiding californians?

I life in a CCW state, but I have friends in CA and family in NYC. I would support this entirely out of self interest if I wasnt such a nice person.
 
Note my one quote here,
I don't think this is worth other people losing what they have so people in Los Angeles can carry.
Click to expand...
No I wasn't trying to say that you don't deserve to have CCW, but that you should not expect it because you live where you live. As has been mentioned, with a national CCW law, there is a good chance the restrictions and procedures that go with the national law would add restrictions to many states that are already "Free America". The national law would actually be bad for them. That is why I am entirely against it if it in anyway limits those states that already have their head screwed on straight. So yes, such a law would be the best thing ever for those living in occupied PRK and other liberal states, but at what expense to the rest of Free America?

You know the stakes in the Bay Area better than anyone else. However, the idiots who live there make the bed they sleep in. I know you are out numbered and I know there is zero chance of things changing without some horrible disaster. I too know how frustrating that is because no matter how right we are, they just don't get it. My point is that if they want to be a disarmed society and those are the laws they want to make, then let them. If you chose to live there, you agree to live by those terms and know that you must fight to change things. I agree to stay in the PRK and fight too, knowing that we are facing a big uphill battle.

However, if the feds offered us a national AWB II that was the exact same as AWB I and would void the PRK's SB-23, I would tell everyone to fight it tooth and nail. In the long run we gain nothing by letting free states lose more rights. For that same reason, I wouldn't support a national CCW that restricts any of the free states. Reciprocity is the only way to go. Let those states who want to limit CCW do so. The voters make those choices and they will live with those consequences. If you live in one of those areas, it is your job to fight them for it, but to also realize that sometimes you are just outnumbered and you won't always win the first time around, the second, the third, or maybe ever.

I mean if you really think about it, these moron liberals have to live somewhere. For some odd reason they will never just go away. Unfortunately, they like our temperate climates.

Of course I live in Kern County. Come on down. You won't miss the Bay at all! :D
 
Im behind enemy lines in the Peoples republic of Rhode island. Just try to get a prmit in RI. They do give them out if you can q2ualify in two areas a) you msut be a politician or b) know one. If you dont your out of luck. There are alot of Rhode Islanders trying to get things to change, but its just not going to happen. A national bill might just restore some of our rights. So for our sake I sure hope it happens.
 
Guys, unless I am mistaken, this only establishes vermont/alaska friendly reciprocity so that you can go from good states to bad states without having to disarm.

This is the same bill talked about on GOA for the past week, sponsored by Hosttetler R-IN.

IT DOES NOT establish standards for concealed carry. It only says that once you have permission to carry in your state, you have permission everywhere in the country. If this results in a lot of people moving out of CA, then so be it.
 
BTW, in CA you can very easily get concealed carry as long as you dont live in the 3 major cities. Fresno has a ton of permits, and they are valid for the whole state. So this wouldnt actually be a huge hardship for the local CA govts since the only people carrying would be visitors from other areas, just like it is now. NYC will just have to get used to non-criminals carrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
SAFE Act- now this is a good law
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Chrontius
C
K
  • Locked
Nationwide CCW Reciprocity in the House of Reps! HR 990
Replies
7
Views
535
Waitone
W
J
  • Locked
S. 388: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
Replies
0
Views
411
jpk1md
J
L
  • Locked
Safe Act Blitz
Replies
0
Views
337
LAR-15
L
J
  • Locked
H.R. 861: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national CCW
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
Back
Top