National CCW reciprocity bill introduced

[LKB3rd]

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

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill


H.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by 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 Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics.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: 1/12/2008 12:00:00 AM

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm....or is this the 4th time???

 

[SaxonPig]

Do you think Emperor Obama... who said in an interview he would favor making concealed carry illegal on a national level... would sign such a bill... if it managed to pass the House with its huge Democrat majority... and the Senate with an even larger majority of people dedicated to destroying the Second Amendment?

This bill will go NOWHERE with Democrats controlling the committee agendas.

 

[misANTHrope]

That's from last year.

Posted: 1/12/2008 12:00:00 AM

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You don't want the feds in on it anyway. It would amount to a de facto recognition of legitimacy to all the unconstitutional state laws that make it necessary to obtain a permit/license to carry a gun.

If Congress wishes to make it no longer illegal to carry a gun into any state, Congress has the power to pass legislation to forbid the several states to pass or enforce any law that infringes upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

That, my friends, is the simple and short answer. Doing things correctly is usually the shortest and simplest method. "Helping" the several states to abide the Constitution is the correct thing to do.

That is the kind of legislation I can get behind. The Constitution is all the preemption necessary - it being the Supreme Law of the Land.

Woody

 

[Bubba613]

That's called letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.
I would be happy for a federal law that permitted me to carry anywhere I can also drive. I don't care much how they do it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I agree completely with Bubba613. We should always remember what we're trying to accomplish. If we're going to insist on ideological purity, we'll never get anywhere.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

That's called letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

Not really. It's called being placated into inaction. Perfect would be the removal of all infringements. Good would be removal of some of the infringements. This law is nothing more than a placation that leaves all the underlying unconstitutional law in place and harder to eradicate.

I agree completely with Bubba613. We should always remember what we're trying to accomplish. If we're going to insist on ideological purity, we'll never get anywhere.

I don't know a single soul who ever met with success without trying to excel. I don't plan to be mediocre.

This proposed law would take us down the wrong road and make our journey difficult to get back on track, let alone reach our destination. There are some things in life you just don't accept - such as second best; being stripped of your rights, freedoms, and personal sovereignty; or anything a politician promises.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

 

[Bubba613]

So a bill that would restore your right to carry everywhere in this country is stripping you of rights. How exactly??

It does not meet your clean definition of what is constitutional or not. So what?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't know a single soul who ever met with success without trying to excel....

Excel at what? Excel at being pure or excel at achieving desired results? I'll take the latter.

 

[Hashshashin]

Not really. It's called being placated into inaction. Perfect would be the removal of all infringements. Good would be removal of some of the infringements. This law is nothing more than a placation that leaves all the underlying unconstitutional law in place and harder to eradicate.

I agree

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So a bill that would restore your right to carry everywhere in this country is stripping you of rights. How exactly??

It does not meet your clean definition of what is constitutional or not. So what?

I've already got the right. It's just infringed at present. This bill doesn't strip away any rights. This bill doesn't restore any rights. It merely adds to the confusion of the profusion of unconstitutional laws in most all of the several states.

Bubba, your "So what" has opened the door to so many wrongs I don't know where to begin counting them.

Fiddletown, the desired result is to unfetter our rights. This bill does not do that. It's just a bandaid that can fall off the first time you wash your hands. The desired result is the unfettered keeping and bearing of arms. Dumping the unconstitutional law will accomplish that with no need for governmental or intergovernmental intrusion. It can't be any more simple!

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The desired result is the unfettered keeping and bearing of arms. Dumping the unconstitutional law will accomplish that with no need for governmental or intergovernmental intrusion. It can't be any more simple!...

But that is absolutely guaranteed not to happen. Insisting on it is just an excuse for failure.

 

[mpmarty]

In my opinion, this goes a long way towards legitimizing the right to carry and raises the level of acceptance of that right to the same as a drivers license. All the sheeple accept drivers licensing without question, wouldn't it be nice if everyone accepted CCW permits in the same light?

 

[docmagnum357]

thee have been as many as three or four bills about national reciprocity since I don't remember when. Some weren't much count, and some were ok. The way this one is worded is good. let the states issue the permits, and make the states recognize each others. It really isa a States rights issue anyway, unless you hold that concealed carry is a fundemental right. i happen to believe that, but I also live in the real world.

I hope whatever happens, the feds don't stick their noses in too far. Like a national database, fedral certificationof permit holders, fedral sertification of instructors, etc.

I doubt that any such law will ever pass, but if it does, i hope it makes things better, not worse.

 

[Dominus]

I'm in a state thats very restrictive.
Who's to say NY won't go the way of 100% premise only.
At that point reciprocity means nothing if you cant leave your home with it.

This state gets you coming and going, very sad.

 

[hadmanysons]

I say keep your fingers crossed

 

[Bubba613]

I've already got the right. It's just infringed at present.

No you don't. Go drive through MD and whip out your permit when stopped. You dont have the right. Saying so don't make it so.
There are so many allegedly unconstitutional laws one more won't make a difference. And it serves a good aim anyway. I'll take unconstitutional and helpful over constitutional and not helpful any day.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Fiddletown, the desired result is to unfetter our rights. This bill does not do that. It's just a bandaid that can fall off the first time you wash your hands. The desired result is the unfettered keeping and bearing of arms. Dumping the unconstitutional law will accomplish that with no need for governmental or intergovernmental intrusion. It can't be any more simple!

But that is absolutely guaranteed not to happen. Insisting on it is just an excuse for failure.

Guaranteed not to happen? It was the case in this country for 147 years! These unconstitutional laws can fall as fast as prohibition. I haven't failed, either.

The gun control laws are just excuses for failing to keep violent criminals in prison. That is a failure you should ponder.

Woody

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

The moment we allow the feds to start acknowledging CCW in a bill or law, we get one step closer to allowing them to ban it nationally with a bill or law. Right now, it's a state right and the feds have no say in the matter. This bill would give them a say. We're happy about it because it appears that their say is what we want it to be. But what happens when they change their mind about CCW, but already have their foot in the door?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I've already got the right. It's just infringed at present.

No you don't. Go drive through MD and whip out your permit when stopped. You dont have the right. Saying so don't make it so.
There are so many allegedly unconstitutional laws one more won't make a difference. And it serves a good aim anyway. I'll take unconstitutional and helpful over constitutional and not helpful any day.

You need to learn the definition of "infringed".

Woody

 

[jbrown50]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
I've already got the right. It's just infringed at present.

No you don't. Go drive through MD and whip out your permit when stopped. You dont have the right. Saying so don't make it so.
There are so many allegedly unconstitutional laws one more won't make a difference. And it serves a good aim anyway. I'll take unconstitutional and helpful over constitutional and not helpful any day.

You need to learn the definition of "infringed".

Woody

And.....you need to learn the definition of "reality".

You're not going to remove an infringement without first taking steps towards removing that infringement. The Feds don't need to first get their foot in the door to do anything. Their foot's already there. They could propose a bill "right now" to ban CCW reciprocity nationwide. The only thing that's keeping them from doing this right now is their fear of a backlash due to public uproar, not this mythical "state's rights" thing that some of you believe in.

Sure, the majority of Congress and the President make speeches about respecting state's rights, sovereignty and so forth, that is until something
comes along that they feel is necessary to make an exception for (ie: National Firearms Act Of 1934, the Gun Control Act Of 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1986 and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban[Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994]).

That said, I agree with you on principle. Carry permits are Un-Constitutional.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It was the case in this country for 147 years! These unconstitutional laws can fall as fast as prohibition. I haven't failed, either....

Don't be silly, Woody. It was assuredly not the case in this country for 147 years. NYC's Sullivan law goes back to 1911. Since the 1880s until the concealed carry law was adopted not too many years ago, carrying a gun was generally illegal in Texas. In the post Civil War days, various laws limited the carrying or possession of weapons by various classes of persons. During the later half of the 19th century many towns in the West restricted the carrying of guns within the town limits. And as you, yourself, called to my attention in a prior thread, in the 1830s a Teas law treated homicide committed with a bowie knife more severely than homicide committed with other weapons.

And even though wapons were subject to fewer restrictions in bygone days, that was then, and this is now. We live in a different world with different values and outlooks. And even if there is some reasonably broad acceptance of a notion of a right to bear arms, there is close to zero political support for complete elimination of all regulation of the private ownership and carrying of weapons.

And even if Prohibition, a wildly unpopular law, fell, there remains a legacy of considerable regulation, at a federal, state and local level, of the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Indeed, the sale of alcoholic beverages remains forbidden in any number of counties in various states.

And if you haven't failed, exactly how have you succeeded.

 

[thesecond]

taurusowner .... perceptive. I agree.

 

[TAB]

here is something else to think about... lots of states allow people from out of state to get CCW... now here is the prob with that. lets just say that for a second that this bill pass. If you can not get a CCW in your state for what ever reason, but you can in say Utah... Well now Utahs law superseeds your states law.

There is no way in hell that will hold up in court. There are only 2 out comes for a law like this:

1, its struck down and adds case law against CCW on the national level.

2 Many states will rethink thier stance of CCW, of which a few will either out law it or make it have so many restriction it will just be impractical/ legal mine field.


Both of those things are very bad.