Nationwide Concealed Carry Bill has 72 Consponsors

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAR-15

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,385
COSPONSORS(72), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/10/2005 Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 3/10/2005 Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/10/2005 Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/10/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 3/10/2005 Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/10/2005 Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 3/10/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 3/10/2005 Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/10/2005 Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 3/10/2005
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/10/2005 Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/10/2005
Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 3/10/2005 Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 3/10/2005
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 3/10/2005 Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 3/10/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 3/10/2005 Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 3/10/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 3/10/2005 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 3/10/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 3/10/2005 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 3/10/2005
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 3/10/2005 Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 3/10/2005
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2005 Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/14/2005
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 3/14/2005 Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 4/14/2005
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 4/14/2005 Rep Peterson, John E. [PA-5] - 4/14/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 4/14/2005 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 4/14/2005
Rep Bilirakis, Michael [FL-9] - 4/14/2005 Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 4/14/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 4/14/2005 Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 4/14/2005
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/14/2005 Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 4/14/2005
Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 5/5/2005 Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 5/5/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 5/5/2005 Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 5/5/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/5/2005 Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/12/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 5/12/2005 Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 5/12/2005
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 5/12/2005 Rep Young, Don [AK] - 5/12/2005
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 5/26/2005 Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 5/26/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 5/26/2005 Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 5/26/2005
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 5/26/2005 Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 5/26/2005
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 6/8/2005 Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 6/8/2005
Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 6/29/2005 Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3] - 6/29/2005
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 6/29/2005 Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 6/29/2005
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 6/29/2005 Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 7/28/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/22/2005 Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/22/2005
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 10/20/2005 Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 11/18/2005
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 11/18/2005 Rep Taylor, Charles H. [NC-11] - 11/18/2005
 
If I understand the bill correctly, it doesn't give the federal goverment power over CCW but simply forces states to recognize other states license. Just like they do marriage license and death certificates. There is no power for the feds here.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
If I understand the bill correctly, it doesn't give the federal goverment power over CCW but simply forces states to recognize other states license. Just like they do marriage license and death certificates. There is no power for the feds here.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, I stand corrected, and I would support the bill.
Now, my question is, if I got an AZ permit as a resident of CA, would CA have to honor it?
 
Dasmi,

The bill merely forces states to recognize the ccw rights of others, INCLUDING ALASKA AND VERMONT.
 
Wait wait...As a California resident, I can carry concealed in Vermont, right?
So would California have to honor Vermont's law in that case? :)
 
TwoGun said:
If I understand the bill correctly, it doesn't give the federal goverment power over CCW but simply forces states to recognize other states license. Just like they do marriage license and death certificates. There is no power for the feds here.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

LAR-15 didn't provide a bill number, but I assume he's talking about HR 1243. If so, you're right, it doesn't look like the BATF gains any regulatory authority, it just provides for reciprocity. Here's the text of the bill. It even provides for inter-state recognition of concealed carry by Vermont and Alaska residents.
 
Yes that is the bill.

Please contact Chairman Howard Coble about it:

Honorable Howard Coble
2468 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3306
(202) 225-3065

Rep Coble decides if this bill is brought for a vote.
 
Why do we think that the Federal Government forcing the states to do ANYTHING is a good idea?

According to the US Constitution, the powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.

States rights, folks, states rights.
 
Ahem-

You would agree at least Congress has the power to force Washington DC to recoginze the concealed carry rights of the states since DC is not a state?

And you then believe that states like Illinois can infringe on my Second Amendment rights?
 
Why do we think that the Federal Government forcing the states to do ANYTHING is a good idea?
Click to expand...
The federal govt. should force the states to abide by the Constitution. Otherwise it is just a scrap of paper.
 
TwoGun said:
If I understand the bill correctly, it doesn't give the federal goverment power over CCW but simply forces states to recognize other states license. Just like they do marriage license and death certificates. There is no power for the feds here.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Youre absolutely correct. This is just a nationwide interstate reciprocity thing. Fed involvement will be no more than in your driver's licenses or marriages.

I'm more worried about getting sponsors in the senate. The House is much more pro gun than the RINO cage.

It annoys me the sheer number of morons on this site that whine about bills before reading them. This bill has been around for months, you have no excuse for not reading it.
 
Sistema1927 said:
Why do we think that the Federal Government forcing the states to do ANYTHING is a good idea?

According to the US Constitution, the powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states.

States rights, folks, states rights.
Click to expand...

Again, knee-jerk reactions triumph over reading comprehension.

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Ever hear of the Necessary and Proper Clause? Ever hear of the 2nd amendment? The 14th? The 9th?

Uniform interstate recognition of weapon permits seems like a subject the federal government is uniquely suited to create laws for.
 
I would be hesitant to suport a bil lgiving the feds control over something like ccw, but I more then would support a fed bill forcing states to accept people's right to it and acknowlage ccw issued by other states. I also wouldn't mind a fed bill that made it so states couldn't write up redicules gun laws, waiting periods, and other garbage like that. Not fed control but federal protection. Will likly never happen but wouldn't mind it.

Why do we think that the Federal Government forcing the states to do ANYTHING is a good idea?
Click to expand...
In some area's I would agree with you. But to protect the rights of the people agianst something stupid done by the state is a good thing.
 
There are two issues with this bill:

On the bad side, it is a case of the federal government telling states what to do. I don't like that.

On the good side, this is the only way there will EVER be reasonable CCW in some die-hard states, namely NY and HI. I believe we will get proper CCW in CA eventually, but states like NY and NJ (with a history of mafia involvement in politics) and HI (with a history of a recent monarchy and caste system) will never ever get their own CCW systems. Strangely, all three of those states (NY, NJ and HI) all have may-issue on the books, but it will never be available to mere citizens.

So I guess this is like the federal civil rights laws. I don't like the fact that they bring federal power into states, but they are the only way that certain states will have non-discretionary freedom.

And I do like the idea of being able to carry easily in NY and CA (especially in San Francisco!).

Does this have any real chance of passing and getting signed?
 
There is a lot of BS going around. There is NO way a bill like this is a good thing for us. I don't believe in centralism, that's for starters. A bill like this would be tough to get through the House and impossible to get through the Senate - as worded.

To pass such a bill, a lot of compromises would have to be reached. Either the CCP standards would have to be agreed on (see made stricter) or we'd have to trade something as big as a new AWB...they ban guns, and only trade licensed-freedom aka "priveledge"


This national CCP junk comes from pro-gun people in states who cannot get their own decent legislation, and want to get around their barbaric states by going the Fed route. At the expense of ruining decades of hard work for people of other states. Make no mistake about it. However you word this legislation to keep the Feds out, ONCE you make it national issue-- it will eventually be taken over as a federal issue. Then we are all screwed. Don't drag us into your misery. Want CCP? Move.


Anyhow, we are in no position to push forward Federally, we are still behind in the war. People act as though we've accomplished so much. Don't get so cocky.

NEWS FLASH ***

The AWB is only gone because of the sunset provision. Had it been permanent law, it would take a full vote in both House and Senate to repeal it, plus a signature from Bush who would then be put to the test to hold his campaign promise. It was far easier fending off a renewal, than achieving a repeal. So far, our record on repeals is ZERO. The Senate voted for the AWB, the House said no, and the president wouldn't have signed an AWB repeal. So, theoretically, if the AWB was permanent law with no sunset provision, putting a Republican House/Senate/President in power wasn't enough. We'd have to get a super-majority in the Senate, the same majority in the House, and a real pro-gun, anti-AWB president. HAHAHAHA. Yeah right.


The gun-industry protection bill is ok. Keeps the industry going which "trickles down" to keeping the sport alive, which in turn feeds the movement. However, it is no major win for gun rights. It was border-line cronyism for some of the old-school domestic firearm manufacturers who've sold us out in the past. They love protectionism - just look at the import bans. They don't like competing with cheap, yet good quality commie rifles. We also got another "ammunition study" which has been explained by the NRA and others as not being able to redefine armor piercing ammo in the law. But what it can do is report what ammo does to body armor, and as a study be used later by the Congress to actually change the law regarding the definition of AP. I guess it doesn't matter, with the BATFE legislating at will...


As you can see, we put in place a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate...and all we got was an AWB expiration (no thanks to any of them but the House), and industry protection....Folks - it is never going to get better. Voting for the Dems will not help, it will make it worse. Adding more Republicans won't help either. If you make them too comfy in their seats, they begin to ignore you. National concealed carry is extremely hard to pull off, and even if we do, is going to be bad in the long run.

The fight should shift to the states. We've mostly lost the national culture war for guns, but it's not over. Because of this, our ideas for legislation are viewed as extreme. How do you get rid of that label? You actually get such a law passed somewhere, anywhere. Get your foot in the door. Once it becomes real law, people then give it more respect. It gains a new image. Also, it's effects or lack of effects can be seen.


State/local is the ticket. Federally, we just need to fend off new gun bans, but forget about actually becoming pro-gun. Sorry for being a pessimist, I am just reporting what I see.
 
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.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

I am a big believer in State's Rights, rights that have been eroded for about 145 years now. However, we are the United States of America, not the Anarchistic States of America. If you want a common nation you have to have a balance between central and decentralized power. The Articles of Confederation didn't allow for much central power at all, resulting in the colonies becoming for many intents separate republics, united in name only. Full faith and credit, along with establishing authority for common currency were two big things the Constitution did to help establish a national identity.

So, do you really want to be married in one state, not in 49? How about obtaining 50 driver's licenses? That is where we are at with CCW, where they should be honored in all states. I don't want a national CCW anymore than I want a national driver's license. I just want Oklahoma, for example, to honor my Virginia permit just as they honor my driver's license. The bill as it stands is a good step. Were it to be amended, then obviously don't support it.
 
I support states' rights too -- up to the point that these states are in material breach of the Constitution of the United States.

This bill has about the same legal basis as the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, which allows you to transport firearms safely, even through darkest Corzinistan.

- NF
 
Yeah, I don't see where the "this violates state's rights" guys are making a solid argument. The feds are not telling other states what to do, they are simply recognizing that if you are properly licensed in one state to carry a concealed weapon, then you would be properly licensed while traveling through another state with that firearm. Just like drivers licenses. If that resident moves to the other state, then they have to follow the laws of the state they move to and this goes out the window.

Lets not be stupid guys. How is letting me travel across the country legally armed a bad thing? Why would you rather see millions of good citizens disarmed as they travel in their most exposed condition? It just doesn't make sense.
 
This bill certainly has a long uphill fight to get to the Presidents desk for signature. I would strongly urge all to let their congressman and senators know how they feel about it.

I am also going to ask my rep for an amendment requiring the federal government to also recognize my carry permit on federal property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
National permit recognition gains support
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
5K
model67a
M
L
  • Locked
219 cosponsors for NRA backed bill
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Zoogster
Z
B
  • Locked
Michigan Legislative Update
Replies
10
Views
408
FJC
F
L
  • Locked
57 members of the US Congress support lifiting DC's semi auto ban
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
LAR-15
L
L
  • Locked
HR 3831 gaining cosponsors
Replies
2
Views
532
Phantom Warrior
P
Back
Top