probability of a federal CCW?

[Warp]

I do not believe that applies here.

Apparently I am not the only one to believe this.

 

[livewire98801]

I do not believe that applies here.

Apparently I am not the only one to believe this.

I noticed.

What bothers me the most is how easily people who are supposedly fighting for restoration of gun rights play into the hands of those who would repeal the 2nd amendment and ban private ownership of arms. Jim Brady has got to be downright giddy when someone finally does their job as defined in the constitution and tries to protect our rights, and all we do is bicker amongst ourselves about how it's some kind of grand conspiracy to give us what we want in order to take it away.

Forgive me if I'm a bit testy here, I've been involved in this debate in several places, and it's the same argument everywhere. Just like we have gun owners who support high-cap magazine bans, and gun owners who think ar-15s should only be in the hands of the military or police, here we have CCW holders fighting against the restoration of a basic right as defined in the Constitution, and in common law throughout history (self defense).

We should be celebrating the fact that this has even been proposed by a sitting Representative, let alone that it literally has hundreds of co-sponsors and has a very good chance of passing if it isn't sabotaged by the very people it's trying to help.

 

[tyeo098]

We should be celebrating the fact that this has even been proposed by a sitting Representative, let alone that it literally has hundreds of co-sponsors and has a very good chance of passing if it isn't sabotaged by the very people it's trying to help.

Brofist.

We should be supporting the crap out of this bill. Not petty arguments about how "its a states rights issue/feds gonna take over/TEOTWAWKI" bovine fecalmatter

 

[Prince Yamato]

Brofist.

We should be supporting the crap out of this bill. Not petty arguments about how "its a states rights issue/feds gonna take over/TEOTWAWKI" bovine fecalmatter

Exactly. We have the opportunity to carry in every state before us and instead of celebrating, the ivory tower elites among us are complaining of states rights. Look, all the bill does is force one state to recognize another's permit. That's it.

 

[tyeo098]

Exactly. We have the opportunity to carry in every state before us and instead of celebrating, the ivory tower elites among us are complaining of states rights. Look, all the bill does is force one state to recognize another's permit. That's it.

People doubting it most likely have never read it.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show

Opencongress is a free non-partisan organization that exists to show us what the bricks in DC are doing to earn their money.

and 89% of people who voted on it support it.

 

[Sam1911]

Look, all the bill does is force one state to recognize another's permit. That's it.

Yes, but "all the bill does" is an unprecedented change in Congressional power. I'm not decided yet whether I appreciate the benefits this would (or might) give more than I fear the ramifications of the power-grab involved, but we should be aware that that's what's happening.

 

[X-Rap]

Watch the bill and its contents carefully and for amendments and who's they are. In the last couple years the fabric of the constitution have been stretched to the point of tearing by passing bills that weren't even written much less read and understood, now we have nonexistent job bills coming from 1600 with the cry to pass this bill. The concept of full faith and credit is a good one if that's as simple as it is but I don't believe anything from DC is that simple.
I have strong agreement with a candidate who wants to make DC as "irrelevant in my life as possible".

 

[livewire98801]

Watch the bill and its contents carefully and for amendments and who's they are. In the last couple years the fabric of the constitution have been stretched to the point of tearing by passing bills that weren't even written much less read and understood, now we have nonexistent job bills coming from 1600 with the cry to pass this bill. The concept of full faith and credit is a good one if that's as simple as it is but I don't believe anything from DC is that simple.
I have strong agreement with a candidate who wants to make DC as "irrelevant in my life as possible".

I agree that most of what has been happening in DC violates the Constitution and is probably making the Founders spin in their graves. This bill isn't one of them though...

 

[thesecond]

You all are talking about HR 822, right?

HR 822? What's that?

Is it a "Full Faith and Credit" bill?

Should it be called a "reciprocity" bill? Are we sure about that?

Please have a read, so we can actually discuss what it is and what it does .... and what it decidedly ain't and don't do.

The 'if-we-don't-do-this-'talk recalls the atmosphere of media pundits and congressmen shuffling forward, throwing a tantrum over a certain stimulus and debt-ceiling budget bill.

HR 822, here it is:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-822

 

[livewire98801]

You all are talking about HR 822, right?

HR 822? What's that?

Is it a "Full Faith and Credit" bill?

Should it be called a "reciprocity" bill? Are we sure about that?

Please have a read, so we can actually discuss what it is and what it does .... and what it decidedly ain't and don't do.

The 'if-we-don't-do-this-'talk recalls the atmosphere of media pundits and congressmen shuffling forward, throwing a tantrum over a certain stimulus and debt-ceiling budget bill.

HR 822, here it is:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-822

Speaking of media pundits and congressmen... you just did all that talking, and I have no idea what you said.

What's your point? Do you agree with the bill and what it does? Do you disagree? Why, and with what parts?

 

[tyeo098]

You all are talking about HR 822, right?

HR 822? What's that?

Is it a "Full Faith and Credit" bill?

Should it be called a "reciprocity" bill? Are we sure about that?

Please have a read, so we can actually discuss what it is and what it does .... and what it decidedly ain't and don't do.

The 'if-we-don't-do-this-'talk recalls the atmosphere of media pundits and congressmen shuffling forward, throwing a tantrum over a certain stimulus and debt-ceiling budget bill.

HR 822, here it is:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-822

1) Read the thread, the bill has been liked to many times.
2) Your link doesn't work.
3) Welcome to the fight who's side are you on?


EDIT: livewire, brofist again. You beat me to it

 

[thesecond]

Here it is. HR 822:

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


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

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the 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 ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. 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 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(emphasis added.)

 

[livewire98801]

Here it is. HR 822:

Yeah... most of us have read it several times.

Still not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Warp]

Jim Brady has got to be downright giddy when someone finally does their job as defined in the constitution and tries to protect our rights,

That is not what this would do

Yes, but "all the bill does" is an unprecedented change in Congressional power.

Yes!

 

[livewire98801]

That is not what this would do

Care to elaborate?

 

[Warp]

I already did.

 

[tyeo098]

Lets break down the important stuff: Part A
[quote="THE BILL HR0822:]a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person[/quote]

Translated from legal-ese:

If you are not a felon, or otherwise a prohibited person, AND you have a CHP issued to you from ANY state, including Florida or Utah, you may carry your gun, as long as its not a machinegun or DD, in any state except for states where ordinary citizens are completely barred from carrying (IL, etc)

Part B:

A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

Translated:

You carry in their state, you follow their rules

Part C:

In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

Translated:

If you carry in a state that had different 'levels' of permits (posession, carry to range, unrestricted carry) you get the same status as someone with a 'unrestricted' carry permit.

Part D:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

Translated:

This bill isnt meant to usurp the existing permit laws in any state

[added] But people will just get FL out of state cards, no might as well change them to get the revenue eh?

 

[livewire98801]

I already did.

Okay... maybe I missed something here, but I just scrolled through the whole thread looking for your posts, and all I see are snarky one-liners and contradictory statements... I don't see your opinion and analysis on how this supposedly impinges our rights by allowing us to carry in more states.

I just can't get from point A (expanding CCW to 49 states) to point B (this is an attack on our right to bear arms). I'm asking for your insightful analysis on how this is a bad thing.


This isn't the health care bill... it's not 2500 pages that looks like a tree stump when it's sitting on a desk. The entire bill is included in post #112 above.

Interesting tidbit:
‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

 

[livewire98801]

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

Just noticed the bolded part... that means that you can't override your own state's CCW issuance policy by getting an out-of-state permit. This protects "states' rights".

 

[Sam1911]

I don't see your opinion and analysis on how this supposedly impinges our rights by allowing us to carry in more states.

I don't know Warp's views exactly, but the Constitutional issue I've explained several times in this thread is not an infringement on "our" rights, per se, but an infringement of the 10th Amendment which holds that the states do have the right to make and enforce laws on issues which the Constitution does not specifically give power to the federal government to control.

In post 47 I said:

...there is a balancing act going on between Article IV, Sec.1 "full faith and credit" clause and the 10th Amendment which recognizes that all powers not delegated to the federal government are held by the states or by the people.

If Congress writes a law that says State A must recognize the powers authorized by a license granted by State B, when those powers would violate the laws of, or do not conform to the requirements of State A, Congress is removing the right of State A to enforce its own laws on that subject.

This does infringe the 10th Amendment, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the language of the specific federal law in question.

As an example...

Utah requires all it's prospective permit holders to take and pass a specific test before it will grant them the ability to carry a concealed weapon. Utah does not feel that a permit holder from Nebraska (just for example) has been required to meet a sufficient standard to carry a concealed firearm within Utah. This law would remove the ability of Utah to create and enforce its own law to that effect.

Taken as absolute values, those two sections of the Constitution in some ways directly conflict. The legislature and the courts try to balance the two competing principles, and each time one or the other principle comes out the loser.

 

[thesecond]

Good to read. Best to comprehend.

see 'emphasis added' edit to post above.

(1) An exemption, right off the bat (IL). See 926D(a)(2). That one State, by the plain language of the bill, needn't honor the statuses granted by another State isn't reciprocity, nor is it anything remotely resembling "Full Faith and Credit".

(2) If IL gets an exemption, will the legislatures in those "other" States (some representing major large municipal jurisdictions), who did their (anti-gun) homework, and who implemented "may-issue-effectively-non-issue" carry bills, have more at stake in defeating (or, simply, in continuing efforts to shelve) HR 822? I think the anti-6's congressmen/senators (IL, NJ, NY, CA, HI, MD) would oppose the bill. I also believe that a not-insubstantial number of 'shall-issue'-State congressmen/senators would not support the bill, as it interferes with their distinction between non-resident and resident permits.

(3) What would the bill need, then, to get senators and congressmen from those numerically powerful States on board? Exemptions as well, or, perhaps, more 'qualificative' restrictions upon the State's obligation to recognize? I'll stick with the State compact system of recognition.

(4) Federal legislative power is not necessary to validate a system of rights and principles already sound under constitutional principles, amongst and between the overwhelming majority of States. See 10th amendment.

(5) HR 922 throws an interesting wrench into the equation. How will it affect the 2A litigation (in Illinois) already in motion? Will it further legitimize IL's carry-prohibition? Will 'may-issue-effectively-non-issue'-States be encouraged to repeal their already restrictive carry legislation, satisfied that they will be in compliance with federal law?

 

[tyeo098]

Just noticed the bolded part... that means that you can't override your own state's CCW issuance policy by getting an out-of-state permit. This protects "states' rights".

Nope, read my breakdown.
It says 'issued by the provisions of A state, not YOUR state'

The last part [me thinks] is saying you can carry in any state, not just your state.

 

[livewire98801]

I don't know Warp's views exactly, but the Constitutional issue I've explained several times in this thread is not an infringement on "our" rights, per se, but an infringement of the 10th Amendment which holds that the states do have the right to make and enforce laws on issues which the Constitution does not specifically give power to the federal government to control.

In post 47 I said:

Okay, YOUR post I can discuss since you actually make a point. The 10th Amendment, as you so clearly point out "the states do have the right to make and enforce laws on issues which the Constitution does not specifically give power to the federal government to control". In this particular case, there are two reasons why this is not a states rights issue.

First, the Constitution is supposed to be the highest rule of the land. It's supposed to be:

Constitution
^
Unenumerated rights
^
Federal Law
^
Treaties
^
State Law
^
County and Municipal

The 10th Amendment provides protection in that chain by defining that if the Constitution doesn't define something that the Fed is allowed to do, then the States get to decide on things.

In this case, the obvious 2nd Amendment says that our right to bear arms can't be infringed. State CCW laws infringe on our right to bear arms.

The Courts have not protected us like they're supposed to in that regard. I think they need to step up and do so, but until then, the second point gives the Fed the right to do this.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

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.

Like I said, this is the first time to my knowledge in my life that Congress is actually doing their job as defined in the Constitution.

 

[brickeyee]

Have you read the Constitution? Go read Article 4, section 1.

You're right, the Feds don't have a right to force states to honor permits issued by other states. They have an obligation.

So my PE license could be forced down every state's throat?

Try reading the WHOLE constitution, especially the 9th and 10th amendments.

This type of federalism would be an unprecedented power grab.

 

[livewire98801]

So my PE license could be forced down every state's throat?

Try reading the WHOLE constitution, especially the 9th and 10th amendments.

This type of federalism would be an unprecedented power grab.

the 9th Amendment, if you apply it, supports this because it expands rights to the People.

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the 10th I discuss in the post above yours

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.