Which National Reciprocity Bill to support?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


I hope people know to support Senators Thune and Vitter's bill and not Senators Begin and Manchin's.




http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/support-new-stronger-national-right-carry-senate-bill

.
Support New, Stronger National Right-to-Carry Senate Bill


Submitted by Gun Owners of America on Mar 14, 2012


Pro-gun Senate champions John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have decided to stand their ground on their concealed carry reciprocity legislation, despite pressure from gun rights compromisers to weaken the bill.

Specifically, Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.

A competing bill, however, pulls the rug out from under “Constitutional Carry.” Sponsored by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the compromise bill still requires a government permit for reciprocity, regardless of state law.

So while the states are moving in the direction of more freedom, the Begich and Manchin bill would keep even the most pro-gun states tied to a permitting system. Why are they doing this? After all, criminals don’t get in line at the police station to get a permit. It’s the law-abiding gun owners who go through the process of proving their innocence before being “allowed” to carry a firearm.
.

.

 

[Alaska444]

Neither, leave this a states rights issue so that we can preserve what we have to date and fight for the rest that we need. The Feds have no business in the permit issue. Once they have the power to regulate, well, they have the power to regulate if you know what I mean. Just because we have a bit of gun friendly weather in many ways right now does not mean it will be so next year or the year after.

No, leave this a states rights issue especially with the upcoming election and the Obama machine at work. If he replaces just one conservative judge, the entire matter is in a desperate recoil from the gains we have made recently. No, keep it states rights and work on the areas that are a problem. Preserve the vast majority of open access to the permits we have today. Why take a Trojans Horse into our midst right now as we are gaining not losing ground. Makes no sense folks.

 

[Spats McGee]

None of the above. Let the States handle carrying of weapons and reciprocity issues. Personally, I'd much rather see some sort of Concealed Weapons Compact.

 

[pbearperry]

If we leave it up to all the states to get on board,it will never happen period.

 

[Spats McGee]

Given that the vast majority of states already issue CCLs in some form, I think it might be overstating it a bit to say that it will "never" happen. The trick is going to be getting someone (like the ABA Model Codes people) to get something drafted.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


This is the National Carry Reciprocity Senate Bill, S. 2188.
.

 

[Alaska444]

Today, 04:35 PM #5
pbearperry
Member

Join Date: October 18, 2007
Location: The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
Posts: 773
If we leave it up to all the states to get on board,it will never happen period.

I can't blame you for being reticent about MA, my mother lives on the Cape and I have had to look up the laws for going there myself. Very sad that I can't even bring a firearm into the state legally. Way out of line for sure.

On the other hand, I will try to find a map that Art Eatman found showing the number of US counties that have permissive CCW. It is essentially the entire US with pockets in CA and the east. Everywhere else is getting their act in line.

We must remember that FL started the Shall Issue in 1987 and the success of reducing crime with that law is what is bringing it to the rest of the US. Each year, there are small and sometimes large gains like Wisconsin for instance.

Please don't forget, that besides the legislative successes, there is a whole slew of gun rights judicial cases such as in Maryland recently. I cant' agree that it will never happen state by state. MA seems to be one of the most restrictive states even more so that CA where I spend half the year. I wish every state was like AZ and AK, but I would just ask folks to be patient or move if you can. I am half way out of CA with a condo we got last year in Idaho. One more step and I can say bye bye Peggy to CA.

There are many Democrats who enjoy firearms and this is gaining support in many ways in a bipartisan way. Stay the course and avoid the Trojan horse!!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Under this law, residents of any state other than NJ could get their own state's or a Florida permit and carry in NJ, but NJ residents could not

 

[hermannr]

Under this law, residents of any state other than NJ could get their own state's or a Florida permit and carry in NJ, but NJ residents could not

So what is the problem. If you do not like this, vote in a new government that will abide by the constitution.

I am 100% for a national bill where the states are required to acknowledge other states legal activities.

NJ is bad, but for an out of state person, NY is worse.

You have to remember, the constitution gives this power to the National government, not to write state law, but to force one state recognize the legal acts of any other state. Read Article IV section 2 (1). This is not an ammendment, this is in the main body of the constitition.

Now, tell me how NY's weapons laws abide by that portion of the constitution, where a non-NY resident is not even supposed to "handle" a pistol, CPL ofrom another state or not.

 

[Alaska444]

Take a look at the progress made in CA. The majority of the counties are CCW friendly. Only the major urban populations are at odds to the 2A.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/7158-county-map-california-ccw-issuance.html

This was not the case only a few years ago. We are winning, state by state, county by county. Time to keep the course.

 

[Twiki357]

I strongly support the mandatory National Reciprocity Bill. Leaving it "as is" for each state to determine which other state CCW's they are going to recognize (If any) creates a high risk situation for all traveling CCW holders because the recognition status is a constantly moving target.

 

[Alaska444]

With a multi-state CCW permit like FL or UT, the majority of states are wide open to CCW. Lot's of great resource out there that keep up to date with state by state regulations.

Why now? We are on the upswing of CCW and gun rights. Why NOW? What is it that the FEDs really want out of this? Court case after court case, state by state, county by county, we are WINNING the battle. Only a matter of time to let the current process run its course. WHY NOW?

 

[Hammer-52]

I would suggest supporting the "Begin/Manchan" as that is the one most likely to pass. What do Vermont citizens do now when they want to carry outside of Vermont? Why couldn't Vermont issue permits to any Vermont citizen who wants to travel out of state?

Now the truely interesting situation would be to see the bill pass and watch the hand wringing in the White House as they try to figure a way to respond without pissing off too many people. Sign it and the Brady crowd will go NUTS. Veto it and Democrats & independents with permits will be yelling.

Just my two pennies.

 

[AlexanderA]

The suggestion that this opens the door to federal intervention is off the mark. All you're doing is making states recognize each others' permits, just as they do now for drivers' licenses. As to the specifics, it would be better to have an actual permit in hand, when out of state, than to rely on your state's "constitutional carry" provision. It's too much to expect law enforcement, all over the country, to know which states are "constitutional carry" and which aren't. "Constitutional carry" states can issue pro forma permits for this purpose.

 

[danez71]

Take a look at the progress made in CA. The majority of the counties are CCW friendly. Only the major urban populations are at odds to the 2A.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/7158-county-map-california-ccw-issuance.html

This was not the case only a few years ago. We are winning, state by state, county by county. Time to keep the course.

The map you linked shows counties with "will issue" lables. Dont confuse that with "shall issue".

For example, the largest county shown, San Bernandino County, is listed as "will issue". If you take to time to read how to apply and under what conditions they'll will consider, "personal protection" is subject to their interpretation how how real or how likely you really need to CC for personal protection.


I lived in Ca for most of my life and I'm about to move back. I have a vested interest in it.

I do agree that CA has made progress since Ive left but the map is easily misinterpreted.

 

[Spats McGee]

The suggestion that this opens the door to federal intervention is off the mark. All you're doing is making states recognize each others' permits, just as they do now for drivers' licenses.

With all due respect, I disagree. If a federal right to carry bill, any federal right to carry bill passes, someone in Congress (probably one of the usual suspects) will start claiming that federal standards are necessary to protect citizens everywhere. I, for one, do not care to have the distinguished folks from the more populous, and more restrictive, states deciding how much training I have to have before I can carry in my own state.

AFAIK, there's no federal law requiring one state to recognize another state's non-commercial DL. That's done through the Driver's License Compact. (I haven't looked into this issue with respect to CDLs).

 

[tyeo098]

If a federal right to carry bill, any federal right to carry bill passes, someone in Congress (probably one of the usual suspects) will start claiming that federal standards are necessary to protect citizens everywhere.

That is not part of this bill and irrelevant to the conversation. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. This does not 'open the door' for it because tomorrow congress could do the same thing.

I, for one, do not care to have the distinguished folks from the more populous, and more restrictive, states deciding how much training I have to have before I can carry in my own state.

Also irrelevant, as even if congress drafts, passes, and the bill is signed, a law making more rules, it could not apply to what you do within the confines of your state, as the state has set rules regarding the issuance of permits, and the 'feds' cannot override them. The only thing that would change in this regard is that you would have to adhere to a 'higher standard' only when traveling to states that your state does not have a reciprocity agreement with. We would still be better off since not only can you travel to recip. states like you can now but in the event that congress does create 'new permitting requirements' they would only apply to those states that your state does not have reciprocity with (NY and NJ and whatnot). We would still be better off.

A) People need to read the bills before they go full tinfoil hat on us.
-----S 2188 (Begin Bill) http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2188/text (this is the do NOT support bill)
-----HR822 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text
-----I was unable to find the Thune bill? (This is the we NEED to support bill)
B) People need to understand how state and federal law works in conjunction with each other.
C) People need to understand the legislative process in general

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Which National Reciprocity Bill to support?

Neither. They're both unconstitutional. Don't be sucked in by the demagoguery surrounding these two bills.

Woody

 

[Spats McGee]

If a federal right to carry bill, any federal right to carry bill passes, someone in Congress (probably one of the usual suspects) will start claiming that federal standards are necessary to protect citizens everywhere.

That is not part of this bill and irrelevant to the conversation. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. This does not 'open the door' for it because tomorrow congress could do the same thing.

That's like saying that we should pass the bill to see what it does. Congress could do all kinds of squirelly things tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'll jump on the bandwagon to make it easier for them. I consider the future of my 2A rights, and the 2A rights of the next generation, to be very relevant to the conversation.

I, for one, do not care to have the distinguished folks from the more populous, and more restrictive, states deciding how much training I have to have before I can carry in my own state.

Also irrelevant, as even if congress drafts, passes, and the bill is signed, a law making more rules, it could not apply to what you do within the confines of your state, as the state has set rules regarding the issuance of permits, and the 'feds' cannot override them. The only thing that would change in this regard is that you would have to adhere to a 'higher standard' only when traveling to states that your state does not have a reciprocity agreement with. We would still be better off since not only can you travel to recip. states like you can now but in the event that congress does create 'new permitting requirements' they would only apply to those states that your state does not have reciprocity with (NY and NJ and whatnot). We would still be better off.

It is folly to claim that the bill "could not" apply to what I do inside my own state. As the bills stand, they do not reach that far. Congress has this funny habit of amending laws, though.

All of the bills which I've read so far, as they currently stand, allow each state to set its own standards. However, once the feds get their foot in the door, I sincerely believe that the senators and reps from the more restrictive states will start screaming about how dangerous it will be for untrained gun-toters to be wandering their streets. The bills that I've read: (a) do nothing for folks in IL (the last bastion of Non-Carry); (b) do nothing for folks in states that do not issue CCLs.

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous. That means that they get more representatives than we do here in Lil Ol' Arkansas, and I cannot vote their lawmakers out of office. I see no reason to believe that the lawmakers from those jurisdictions won't call for federal licensing standards.

A) People need to read the bills before they go full tinfoil hat on us.
-----S 2188 (Begin Bill) http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2188/text (this is the do NOT support bill)
-----HR822 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text
-----I was unable to find the Thune bill? (This is the we NEED to support bill)
B) People need to understand how state and federal law works in conjunction with each other.
C) People need to understand the legislative process in general

This has nothing to do with tinfoil hats. I realize that I'm a relative newcomer with a low post count around here, but as of September, I will have had my law license for 10 years. I'm well acquainted with the legislative process.

 

[tyeo098]

That's like saying that we should pass the bill to see what it does.

Essentially, yes. Thats why the AWB wad passes back in '94 and NOT extended in '04. It was shown to have no effect.

It is folly to claim that the bill "could not" apply to what I do inside my own state. As the bills stand, they do not reach that far.

As a rule of thumb anything that applies to 'interstate commerce clause' can not be applied to something that is contained within a state. Even as you stated, the current bills do not reach that far, that IS correct but in this thread we are not discussing future amendments to the bills, or future bills in general, we are discussing them as they are.

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous.

So you are telling me that these states outnumber ALL of the pro-ccw states in the union? I think that is a simple math error. Given that EACH state has 2 senators, and bills have to go through the HOUSE and the SENATE to be passed, your claim that they can simply outnumber us by population is false.

 

[CoRoMo]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313
Under this law, residents of any state other than NJ could get their own state's or a Florida permit and carry in NJ, but NJ residents could not

Originally Posted by hermannr
So what is the problem. If you do not like this, vote in a new government that will abide by the constitution.

Yeah. Really. Just chip away at the gun control and a few generations from now, YOU will be able to carry concealed in your state!!

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
Which National Reciprocity Bill to support?

Neither. They're both unconstitutional. Don't be sucked in by the demagoguery surrounding these two bills.

This.

 

[Spats McGee]

That's like saying that we should pass the bill to see what it does.

Essentially, yes. Thats why the AWB wad passes back in '94 and NOT extended in '04. It was shown to have no effect.

That does not give me any reason to support further federal legislation on this issue. Nor does it give me any reason to believe the Congress will refrain from enacting national standards. Oh, on that note, here's the opening line from HR 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

(emphasis supplied by Spats McGee)

I do not think it's a stretch to believe that one of the legislators from a restrictive state is going to look at that and say, "Well, look. It says right here that the purpose of this bill is to provide a national standard."

It is folly to claim that the bill "could not" apply to what I do inside my own state. As the bills stand, they do not reach that far.

As a rule of thumb anything that applies to 'interstate commerce clause' can not be applied to something that is contained within a state. Even as you stated, the current bills do not reach that far, that IS correct but in this thread we are not discussing future amendments to the bills, or future bills in general, we are discussing them as they are.

Plenty of laws based on the Commerce Clause have effect on things that are contained within a state. The rule of thumb is that Congress can regulate it if it travels in interstate commerce. If a CC'er wants to go from one state to another, he's traveling in interstate commerce.

I do not want them as they are. This is because of foreseeable future cosequences. These bills have "Law of Unintended Consequences" written all over them. I took a look at the bills you linked. I have read every one of them. (As for the Thune bill, I couldn't find it, either.)

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous.

So you are telling me that these states outnumber ALL of the pro-ccw states in the union? I think that is a simple math error. Given that EACH state has 2 senators, and bills have to go through the HOUSE and the SENATE to be passed, your claim that they can simply outnumber us by population is false.

No, that's not what I said. I did not say "these [restrictive states] outnumber ALL of the pro-ccw states in the union." Here's what I said:

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous. That means that they get more representatives than we do here in Lil Ol' Arkansas, and I cannot vote their lawmakers out of office. I see no reason to believe that the lawmakers from those jurisdictions won't call for federal licensing standards.

Yes, every state has 2 Senators. Nowhere in my post did I mention senators. The number of representatives is determined by population. That mechanism gives one high-population, restrictive state a larger number of votes in the US House of Representatives than Arkansas gets. That's not a math error.

Regardless of the number of votes, there's this simple fact: I do not want any representatives (or senators for that matter) to get a say in my State's licensing standards, unless they are from my State.

 

[Neverwinter]

So you are telling me that these states outnumber ALL of the pro-ccw states in the union? I think that is a simple math error. Given that EACH state has 2 senators, and bills have to go through the HOUSE and the SENATE to be passed, your claim that they can simply outnumber us by population is false.

<br />
No, that's not what I said. I did not say "these [restrictive states] outnumber ALL of the pro-ccw states in the union." Here's what I said:<br />

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous. That means that they get more representatives than we do here in Lil Ol' Arkansas, and I cannot vote their lawmakers out of office. I see no reason to believe that the lawmakers from those jurisdictions won't call for federal licensing standards.

<br />
Yes, every state has 2 Senators. Nowhere in my post did I mention senators. The number of representatives is determined by population. That mechanism gives one high-population, restrictive state a larger number of votes in the US House of Representatives than Arkansas gets. That's not a math error.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the number of votes, there's this simple fact: I do not want <u>any</u> representatives (or senators for that matter) to get a say in my State's licensing standards, unless they are from my State.

The math error stems from the egocentric idea of NY/CA/IL vs AR, when all of the other states with less restrictive permit systems would also oppose such efforts. The math on that from at least one of the two houses that have to pass it does not hold up.

Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Spats McGee]

The math error stems from the egocentric idea of NY/CA/IL vs AR, when all of the other states with less restrictive permit systems would also oppose such efforts. The math on that from at least one of the two houses that have to pass it does not hold up.

The math error only exists in relation to a claim that I never made. While I agree that most (if not all) states that are at least as permissive as Arkansas would likely oppose restrictive licensing standards, that is an assumption not yet proven. In all fairness, it is certainly a reasonable assumption, but it is one that cannot be proven until the votes have been counted after: (a) passage of a national concealed carry reciprocity bill; and (b) voting on national standards.

My original claim still holds true:
1) Arkansas has 4 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

2) California has 53 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

3) New York has 29 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

4) Illinois has 19 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Accordingly,

Some of the most restrictive states (NY, CA, and IL, for example) are also some of the most populous. That means that they get more representatives than we do here in Lil Ol' Arkansas, and I cannot vote their lawmakers out of office. I see no reason to believe that the lawmakers from those jurisdictions won't call for federal licensing standards.

There are 435 current members of the US House of Representatives. Those three states have a total of 101 Representatives. That's roughly 23% of the House of Representatives. Those three states alone have 97 more Representatives than Arkansas does. (53+29+19=101-4=97). While I don't think all of the Reps from those states would vote as a bloc, that's a whole lot of voting power, relative to Ark's.

 

[tyeo098]

but it is one that cannot be proven until the votes have been counted after: (a) passage of a national concealed carry reciprocity bill; and (b) voting on national standards.

And until then we can only speculate.

My original claim still holds true:
1) Arkansas has 4 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

2) California has 53 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

3) New York has 29 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

4) Illinois has 19 Representatives. Source: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

This is correct. However the error occurs when you assume that every representative from the state would vote for national standards. If you look at the map of CA counties you can see that most of them are in fact shall-issue. The only problem would come from the Representatives of the cities much like how most of IL has to deal with Chicago, NY with NYC and CA with LA. How many districts are within the confines of those cities? Not 101 if you ask me.

Accordingly,

There are 435 current members of the US House of Representatives. Those three states have a total of 101 Representatives. That's roughly 23% of the House of Representatives. Those three states alone have 97 more Representatives than Arkansas does. (53+29+19=101-4=97). While I don't think all of the Reps from those states would vote as a bloc, that's a whole lot of voting power, relative to Ark's.

23% does not move a bill from the house to the Senate. Even if it did, my previous post stated that the Senate, not based on population would effectively stonewall the bill, seeing as each state is represented equally.
23% of the house is occupied by these three states. But only 6% of the senate.

A better example would be to say that since firearms ownership is on the rise and more states support CCW than not ( in fact, 98% more to some degree) so (assuming your example is correct, 100%-23%) 77% of representatives would stonewall the bill in the house, while 94% of Senators would kill it in the Senate. (And *crosses fingers* Hopefully President Ron Paul would not sign it if he had an, excuse the pun, gun to his head)

There's just so many things here!

You are comparing the voting power of 3 states to your home state of Arkansas. Uhm, why? You have states like:
Florida: 23 reps
Virginia: 11 reps
Texas: 32 reps
Pennsylvania: 19
Georgia: 13
Arizona: 8

(Total=108)

ALL ON YOUR SIDE!

Thats enough oomph right there to negate anything the terrible triad tries to do.