H.R.1243- National CCW bill introduced

[io333]

I know all the arguments for and against. I just want to weigh in: As a 100% pro gun person, if and when this bill comes up for a vote, I will be repeatedly contacting my local legislators, and many out of state legislators, to demand that they vote NO on this bill. I'm now old enough, and wise enough, to be able to peer, even if only dimly, at the future; yet I can see remarkably clearly that Fed involvement in the area CCW is the worst possible idea, from gun rights advocates, to have come along in a generation.

I've been fighting for CCW rights for over 10 years and cannot believe that some are now willing to take such a large risk which could very lead to the eventual destruction of all of our hard work, overnight. I'm dismayed at the folks in the leftist states, once again, trying to use the fed to accomplish what they cannot at home. Left staters always have the option of moving to a free state. Rest assured that purely selfish concerns about their high paying jobs, girlfriends, etc., are what is driving them to try to impose their will, once again, upon the free states, via the fed. It is *that mentality* that makes us red staters so angry with the blue staters, *regardless* of the issue.

 

[TarpleyG]

Excuse me if I am reading this all wrong but this is not National CCW. This is National reciprocity. That's an exciting premise, no? Am I missing something? This is what we have been sqwaking about all along--to be able to carry anywhere in the 50 states as long as we can do so at home.

Greg

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

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 (See, this applies to us poor souls in places like Florida where we gotta have a permit)

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence, (See, this applies to those lucky SOBs in places like Vermont and Alaska where they don't gotta have a permit)

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.'.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I cannot believe the complete and utter stupidity that has been shown in this thread.

See the bill text above? No federal "control". No "National CCW permit". You folks who keep opposing this language either think this is a National CCW Permit law (issued by the DOJ perhaps?), or the Stearns bill which imposes a national standard on concealed carry licensee's who happen to be a prohibited state.

This law does neither. Here is what the law actually does: You have a permit issued by any state, you can carry in any state, subject to the terms of your license (your license must be issued for personal protection/ALP, for you Massachusetts types) or the laws of your state of residence (if they give the ability for residents to carry concealed without a permit, you folks in Vermont and Alaska would have nationwide carry without a permit) and subject to the places in the state where firearms may not be carried.

That's it. That is all. . Remember, they already did this with 18USC926A back in 1986 for crying out loud for having firearms for interstate transport, and before you start screaming about states like New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts arresting people for showing up at airports who are following 926A, here's a newsflash: They weren't. The law only protects you if you are in fact transporting a firearm in your trunk or in someplace totally inaccessible.

This kind of defeatist attitude sickens me. If we had this attitude with the AWB, we would have never suceeded in keeping it from getting re-enacted.

 

[TarpleyG]

That was my point too Lonnie. Everybody's got their panties in a bunch and they haven't even read the text of the proposed bill. Please read it folks. It is as clear as .gov clear gets.

Greg

 

[David N]

Nat'l Concealed Carry

FANTASTIC NEWS!
Now let's all pressure our congresspeople to pass this bill into law.

Safe Shooting,
"Never"

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Braino. Deleted.

- pdmoderator

 

[io333]

OK, let me try again:

Having the Feds involved in CCW is unnecessary, and as all of history has shown, a bad idea.


We have been doing a beautiful job, regarding reciprocity, at the state level. At the state level, reciprocity bills have been passing like wildfire, with nary a peep from the anti-gun media. Why in the world do you want to bring Feinstein and the New York Times to weigh in, (and you know they will), on what we have been accomplishing quietly and effectively by other means?


When the day comes that we have a Democrat anti-gunner woman in the White House, which I believe has a very good chance of happening, and a Democrat Congress to boot, why shouldn't they think that they ought to be able interject their own beliefs into the CCW process? After all, the Republicans felt it was OK to pass national laws in that area, yes?

Right now CCW is a STATE ISSUE, and CCW has ALWAYS, for over two hundred years, been a STATE ISSUE. Congress has always been completely hands off except regarding their own federal police. There is no better way for Congress to be, than hands off. Proponents here want Congress to be hands on. That's more than stupid, it's NUTS.

 

[orangeninja]

I'm not seeing the big deal here. Federal oversite of all state laws is both constitutional and status quo. Has been so since the Civil War, so this idea is nothing new.

Heck Federal Acknowledgement of a private citizens right to carry concealed is a HUGE LEAP FORWARD from 5 years ago for those of us with short memories.

I hope you guys have enough sense to back a Federal Bill authorizing carry for average folks. For those of you concerned that the Feds will know whether or not you have guns for the "end days" when all of them are confiscated, grow up. Thinking like that will lead to the realization of your fears. Backing solid legislation and fighting for your rights in court is how change is made.

The liberals arlready know this, why are conservatives such slow learners?

 

[io333]

Also:


I travel alot. I often have to travel to New Jersey, Maryland, and California. It sucks that I have to disarm the entire time. I'd love to be able to carry in those places. But at such a price? Emphatically: No!



I've read the bill. It stuffs CCW down the throats of places like NJ. Right now NJ does not want me to carry there. That is within the power of the state of NJ, and a right of the people that have elected their own politicians to keep NJ that way. When the people of NJ are ready for the change, they will make it so, and that is how it ought to be. The bill *is* national CCW and I don't see how you can say that it is not. Right now I can't carry in NJ, and if the bill passes, then I can, even though the people of NJ do not want me to. How in the world can you say that is "not national CCW?"

We, supposedly "red state" people, are now trying to use the same tactics against the blue that we supposedly despise in them. I'm disgusted.

 

[io333]

The liberals arlready know this, why are conservatives such slow learners?

"Convservatives" believe that government best serves the interests of its people when it takes place at a local level. It's not a problem of learning, it's that people calling themselves conservative no longer understand the philosophy.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Rest assured that purely selfish concerns about their high paying jobs, girlfriends, etc., are what is driving them to try to impose their will, once again, upon the free states, via the fed.

So in other words if we don't want to give up our whole life (family, friends, career) in order to move for better firearms laws then we're selfish.

Just figured I'd summarize that.

 

[Gordon Fink]

“Convservatives†believe that government best serves the interests of its people when it [oppresses them] at a local level.…

~G. Fink

 

[orangeninja]

"We, supposedly "red state" people, are now trying to use the same tactics against the blue that we supposedly despise in them. I'm disgusted."


The above quote is why the left will eventually dominate this country if the "conservatives" don't change their tactics. If we keep compromising to demand after demand, a little bit of this country will be chipped away at a time.

The constitution supports Federal oversite on state laws. To those of you who disagree, I suggest you look at the national ramifications of Supreme Court rulings and how it affects your life.

Refusing to acknowledge the authority and oversite of the Federal Government will not make it go away. It'll just mean your voice is not heard.

 

[stevelyn]

Right now I can't carry in NJ. If the bill passes I can carry in NJ even though the people don't want me to. How in the world can you say this isn't national CCW?

io333,

As I'm understanding the bill, it isn't national CCW per se as establishing a national CHL. It merely forces those states to adhere to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution by making them recognize and honor a lawful document issued by your state the same as they do your drivers license, marriage license, birth certificates, etc. It is federally mandated reciprocity.

Steve
A lucky SOB in Alaska

 

[beerslurpy]

I am shocked at the level of retardedness in this thread. This has nothing to do with federal control of CCW, it is entirely about reciprocity. There is absolutely no reason for a sane libertarian or gun owner to oppose this. This would be like slaves griping about the 13th and 14th amendment because it represents too much federal interference in local affairs. Are you not the same gun owners who have griped for decades about the blue states abridging our 2nd amendment rights? What is wrong with you people?

This is about as intrusive as the fed govt saying "if you have a drivers license in one state, you can drive anywhere in the country." Some states have very strict driving requirements, some have very light ones. Some have different ages than others, some have different policies towards speeding, DUI, etc. The home state controls the licensing, the feds control what happens when you are travelling outside your home state. If you actually change residence to the other state, obviously you would be requried to live under their licensing rules. This only affects interstate travellers and it is not unreasonable that the fed gov should have some influence here.

And for those who, like me, prefer a constitutional basis (as if the 2nd and 14th together werent enough) for this legislation, I quote:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

[Lord Bodak]

beerslurpy summed it up perfectly. The 2nd Amendment combined with the Full Faith & Credit clause should be all we need for national reciprocity. However, some states feel that they should restrict the rights granted by the Constitution. It's not really a states' rights issue when the states are ignoring the Constitution.

 

[orangeninja]

I haven't read the bill, but if your summary is on the spot, it sounds like a great idea.

What is legal in Texas should not be a felony in New Jersey.

 

[io333]

What is legal in Texas should not be a felony in New Jersey.

Then why bother having seperate states at all? Why don't we just dump the whole "United States" concept thingy and run everything from DC?


Ronald Reagan would have lost the election if he ran today.


I tried. I give up now.

 

[orangeninja]

News flash...the United States is a Federation.



federation

n 1: an organization formed by merging several groups or parties 2: a union of political organizations [syn: confederation, confederacy]

Each state maintains it's own ability to make laws, however, wouldn't you agree io333 that the Federal Government has seen to your right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment. Would you now also agree that since the Civil War, the individual states have played second fiddle (southern jargon) to the FEDERAL Government? Via Supreme Court, Via President....

States are represented in Congress and Senate in the Federal System.
Thus this would be a law passed by a Federation of idividual states. Thus this would be the will of the Union. If you think each state should be a kingdom of it's own, forget the "Stars and Stripes" you might be more attuned to the "Stars and Bars".

Federation is what ended slavery, but maybe then that should have been left up to the states as well.

Doctor's instructions. Take 2 semesters of American Government and this time don't cheat.

Rant.............Done.

 

[Devonai]

Whether or not you pay income tax, property tax, or meal tax is up to the states. Which bird and flower you're going to honor is up to the states. The maximum speed limit is up to the states.

A natural human right, recognized by our creator if you believe in one or simply as a universal element, is not. "Forcing" the states to live up to this essential fact is not an abuse of federalism, it is an act of emancipation in the face of ill-conceived and immoral local feudalism.

My use of the word emancipation is not a coincidence. EDIT: Alduro beat me to the point, but we're both right.

 

[beerslurpy]

io333, I dont understand why you cant understand this.

Since the 1860s, states havent had the authority to deny the rights of their citizens under any pretext. This applies ESPECIALLY to the 1st and 2nd amendments, because those were the rights being denied to blacks in the south as the justification for the amendment's creation. There might be some among us who lament the fact that you can no longer own black people but most of us recognize that abridging fundamental human rights is not acceptable no matter which governmental body is doing it.

Since the dawn of the consitution in 1791, both the right to bear arms and the right for congress to ensure that contracts and laws are consistent between states were granted to congress. This was SPECIFICALLY done because the articles of confederation were too weak and the states were refusing to recognize contracts, currency or laws of the other states. I dont understand how CCW is any different from a drivers license and any less deserving of protection regardless of what state you visit.

 

[Third_Rail]

This is indeed great news! If it passes, it means I'll be able to visit MA armed after I move to VT.


Thinking good thoughts about it passing!

 

[El Rojo]

Everybody's got their panties in a bunch and they haven't even read the text of the proposed bill.

Maybe the reason is this quote directly from the author of this very thread.

Resolution has been introduced and assigned a number. Actual text has not been posted yet.

When this thread was created, the text had not been disclosed yet. It was not until post #27 that the text of the bill was even quoted. Immediately in post #28 we have Lonnie Wilson throwing around words like "complete and utter stupidity". What is that plank eye? How about you guys who can't understand us "common folk" relax and read the whole thread yourselves. The text was not introduced into this thread until today. Sorry to rain on those of you who are obviously superior and somehow know everything prior to it being disclosed. We are mere imbiciles in your presence. :banghead:

With this being said, I think it is a bad idea. Let the states handle it.

 

[junyor]

I can understand both sides of the argument and support an open & civil debate.

In this issue, I see the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good:

National reciprocity is a good thing for gun owners. Congress is doing what it is supposed to do, protecting our rights as enumerated by the Bill of Rights. As simple as that.

The Bad:

1) Limiting states rights in denying reciprocity. In general (possibly because I am a Texan), I favor states rights over federal rights, notice I say in general. IMHO, our state is proficient and capable of managing reciprocity without federal “interferenceâ€. As of 2005, we have agreements with 18 states. Taking reciprocal agreement authority away from the state would mean that we (read Texans) would no longer have the right to set the terms of reciprocity. I had to spend a good deal of time in a classroom learning the applicable state laws and pass a range proficiency to obtain my CHL. Now any state that grants a conceal carry permit to any Tom, Dick or Harry without even minimal specifications would have to be recognized by my state as a valid carrier. This is the "no fair" I had to do it argument.

2) Anti-gun states will seek to challenge this in court. IF it is challenged in court, I am fairly sure that it will travel up to the Supreme Court for a ruling before anyone lets it drop. If the SCOTUS finds in favor of the states, well then...we have ourselves a bit of a pickle. Regardless of the outcome, this will bring the issue of concealed carry to the forefront of the “gun control†debate. We can rest assured the Brady Campaign and the rest of "those people" will hammer into our fellow Americans the "evils of guns." This message will be played out over and over in the grand scheme of our forth branch of federal government – the media.

The Ugly:

Let us assume the law passes, stands the weight of judicial review, and the review of our fellow citizens. Sometime in the distant future (if you are an optimist) this assertion of federal authority over the states in regards to the 2nd amendment COULD spell trouble. It COULD lay the ground work for a future congress to tack on additional riders requiring the states to mandate a process for obtaining a conceal carry permit. If this future congress is anti-gun, it COULD deal a severe blow to our 2nd amendment freedoms.

The Conclusion:

All of that being said and although I haven't seen the full text of this bill, based on what I have heard and read - I believe it is good for gun owners - an affirmation of our 2nd amendment rights by the federal government. As for the bad & the ugly, they are ALWAYS possible. We will fight those fights when they come; freedom is not for the timid. As someone smarter than me once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson

Molon Labe!

 

[io333]

Taking reciprocal agreement authority away from the state would mean that we (read Texans) would no longer have the right to set the terms of reciprocity.

Correct.


For any of you folks that can remember first year of law school, there's a little case, way back when, asking whether a state can further legislate in an area that the fed has claimed as it's own. It involved the railroads. I don't feel like looking it up. Anyway, the answer was "no."


The above quote is what is most scary about this whole national CCW movement. If I was a conspiracist, (which I'm not... yet), I'd say that this is a genius scheme hatched by the anti-gunners to finally wrest the CCW movement away from the grass roots, where they can't control anything, and move it to the level where they can.


I am truly frightened. Why? Because so many of us are unable to see what is happening, and are actually working towards something that is going to come back and bite us in the butt, even though plenty of people are telling them exactly what is wrong with this kind of legislation.