Which National Reciprocity Bill to support?

[Spats McGee]

. . . .This is correct. However the error occurs when you assume that every representative from the state would vote for national standards. . . . .

Then the error was not mine, as I neither assumed nor stated that.

The statement about the restrictive states outvoting the rest of the union were yours, not mine:

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. . . .

Even if these potential, not-yet-existent federal regulations turn out to be fairly non-restrictive, I still don't want representatives and senators from out of state setting the standards for my state.

Edited for clarity: Look, if these standards do come to pass, I do sincerely hope that the pro-RKBA states really do have the political oomph to do everything you claim, and they will vote as you predict. With that said, I'm almost never a big fan of federal regulation. I like States' rights, and I like keeping the rule-making at home.

 

[alsaqr]

i do not support either bill. The US congress is meddling in states rights here. No good can come of it.

 

[osan]

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?

I cannot speak for Begich, but Manchin is a dick. Actually, he isn't. To call him that elevates him so far above his true station as to insult the dicks of the world in an unforgivably egregious manner. Let us just say Manchin is not our friend in this. He "supported" gun owner rights as governor of WV because had he not, he'd have been hunted like a coon by a great raft of very pissed off hillbillies, God bless 'em.

Nick Rayhal was my representative and also "supported" 2A. Uh huh. The little commie would have sold us down the river first chance but for the same fear of those coon hunters who would have shot him and nailed his hide to a barn door.

 

[Arkyhog]

I believe the 'error' in supporting any of these bills is going with the assumption that the federal government will not attempt to gain more power over the people through this legislation as it now reads.

The government is ALWAYS looking to gain more power over us. We need legislation that will reduce the power over the people.

 

[Spats McGee]

The more I've thought about HR 822, the more I'm bothered by Section 3:

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c1128xZuWJ:: (Emphasis supplied by Spats)

If this bill were strictly for making states honor each others' permits, most of Section 3 would be wholly unnecessary. Why the focus on non-resident permits? Why the request for the basis of denials of non-resident permits? Perhaps more importantly, why the directive for the GAO to examine the effectiveness of laws governing the issuance of non-resident permits on protecting the public safety? If national reciprocity were truly the sole aim, the one and only question that the GAO needs to study is: Which states prohibit concealed carry?

 

[tyeo098]

The more I've thought about HR 822, the more I'm bothered by Section 3:

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c1128xZuWJ:: (Emphasis supplied by Spats)

If this bill were strictly for making states honor each others' permits, most of Section 3 would be wholly unnecessary. Why the focus on non-resident permits? Why the request for the basis of denials of non-resident permits? Perhaps more importantly, why the directive for the GAO to examine the effectiveness of laws governing the issuance of non-resident permits on protecting the public safety? If national reciprocity were truly the sole aim, the one and only question that the GAO needs to study is: Which states prohibit concealed carry?

Wasn't a section like this also included in the AWB'94 and the audit results played a part in why Congress did not seek to renew it?

 

[gc70]

i do not support either bill. The US congress is meddling in states rights here. No good can come of it.

I tend to agree that a new federal intrusion into an area historically controlled by the states is concerning.

More practically, I cannot currently support the Thune-Vitter bill because it is not available to determine what it contains and I would not commit to support the Begich-Manchin bill until I could see how it compares to the Thune-Vitter bill.

 

[brickeyee]

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.

By mutual agreement among the states, not by any Federal action.

While reciprocity is a patchwork now, it should become more uniform with time.

Just like with driver's licenses.

 

[ErikO]

The more I've thought about HR 822, the more I'm bothered by Section 3:

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c1128xZuWJ:: (Emphasis supplied by Spats)

If this bill were strictly for making states honor each others' permits, most of Section 3 would be wholly unnecessary. Why the focus on non-resident permits? Why the request for the basis of denials of non-resident permits? Perhaps more importantly, why the directive for the GAO to examine the effectiveness of laws governing the issuance of non-resident permits on protecting the public safety? If national reciprocity were truly the sole aim, the one and only question that the GAO needs to study is: Which states prohibit concealed carry?

I guess I see this a bit differently. The audit says to me that the GAO will check and see what the trends on issueing/not issueing are and if there are any actual patterns to either. Considering that all gun restriction laws have a racial history, I have no issue with oversight into potential abuses, such as those in LA and Orange Counties in CA where only 'connected' people are being issued permits to the detriment of lawfull residents that aren't 'connected'. We very well could see Federal pressure to move states to Shall Issue status as a way to head off litigation to restore rights that are being blocked at the state level.

 

[gc70]

Here is a link to the GPO copy of the Begich-Manchin bill since the Thomas.gov times out and becomes invalid.

 

[danez71]

Wasn't a section like this also included in the AWB'94 and the audit results played a part in why Congress did not seek to renew it?

Yes.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

This Constitution is a Federal document. The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. Thus, the Second Amendment, "...to keep and bear arms" is Federal.

To say that it is purely a state's rights issue and has nothing to do with the Federal government is simply incorrect. Recognizeing the right a citizen of the US, no matter what state, has to bear arms has always been a federal issue. Since the day the Constitution was ratified, it has been part of Federal authority to make sure that right is not infringed.

The real way to go about this, is honestly through the Supreme Court. We already have a "national firearms carry bill". It's called the Second Amendment. A Federal statement, in the Constitution itself no less, that states that citizesn of the United State may carry firearms. The wording is there. The text is there. The law is there. We just need it applied and interpreted correctly.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the meaning of "to bear" in the Second Amendment. In fact, they sidestepped the issue in the Heller case. There are other cases winding their way through the courts, that if and when they end up in the SC, could shed light on this. In the meantime, a national reciprocity law could be useful.

For those that would rely strictly on the 2nd Amendment as their carry law, it's worth noting that "bearing" is not necessarily the same as "carrying." In the 18th century, both "arms" and "to bear" were terms of art with specific meanings that were not exactly what we think of today. "Arms" were militarily useful weapons, not, for example, run-of-the-mill squirrel rifles. A "stand of arms" consisted of a musket, a bayonet, and the associated accoutrements. Likewise, "bearing arms" meant using them in some kind of standard military drill, not casually carrying them around or going hunting with them.

Transposing this to the 21st century, "keeping and bearing arms" would seem to mean private citizens having the right to own (and train with) the full panoply of standard military infantry weapons. However, to be honest, the Supreme Court (judging from Scalia's opinion) would prefer to go in a different direction.

 

[Alaska444]

I would beg to differ that bear did not mean to carry 200 years ago.

Take a look at Websters 1828 definition of bear.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,bear

 

[AlexanderA]

I would beg to differ that bear did not mean to carry 200 years ago.

Take a look at Websters 1828 definition of bear.

I agree that "bear," by itself, meant to "carry." However, "bear arms," in combination, had a more restricted meaning (being armed in a military context).

Now, before someone jumps all over me for saying that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the National Guard, I would also point out that in the 18th-19th centuries, the "militia" meant every able-bodied citizen. (It's still essentially defined that way in the United States Code.)

I would have much preferred it if the Supreme Court, in the Heller case, had given due weight to the Militia Clause in the 2nd Amendment, instead of disregarding it completely -- but the Militia Clause as expansively understood. If the Court had done that, the logical conclusion would eventually have been that the National Firearms Act of '34 -- and all restrictions on machine guns, etc. -- was unconstitutional.

 

[gc70]

The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, is now available for review.