Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by namvet68, Mar 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. namvet68

    namvet68 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Coupeville, Washington
    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?
     
  2. namvet68

    namvet68 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Coupeville, Washington
    Thanks, I guess I got just the first half of the story.
     
  3. LNK

    LNK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    SE MA Soon Somewhere else
    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
     
  4. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,651
    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.
     
  5. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,467
    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.
     
  6. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Any firearms regulation at the federal level undermines the 2nd Amendment. We need to push for less regulation at the federal level, not more.
     
  7. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,651
    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.
     
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    You do realize these things are recognized at the pleasure of the states and not by Federal mandate, right?
     
  9. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,651
    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.
     
  10. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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.
     
  11. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    I agree as well that any federal gun law is a bad idea, and never said otherwise.
     
  12. Nickel Plated

    Nickel Plated Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    385
    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.
     
  13. Captains1911

    Captains1911 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Loudoun County, VA
    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.
     
  14. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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."
     
  15. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    Standardized requirements

    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.
     
  16. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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.
     
  17. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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.
     
  18. Captains1911

    Captains1911 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Loudoun County, VA
    The states I was referring to don't accept any out of state permits, not just mine.
     
  19. Coop45

    Coop45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Texas
    I trust Austin more than DC.
     
  20. steelerdude99

    steelerdude99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    Location:
    Stafford County, VA
    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
     
  21. rondog

    rondog Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,801
    Location:
    Commurado
    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.
     
  22. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    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.
     
  23. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    U S Supreme court has allowed States to regulate

    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.
     
  24. rodinal220

    rodinal220 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,298
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  25. steelerdude99

    steelerdude99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    Location:
    Stafford County, VA
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page