H.R. 861: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national CCW

[jpk1md]

H.R. 861: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in ac

Basically a national CCW

H.R. 861: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-861

Introduced: Feb 6, 2007
Sponsor:
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]show cosponsors (1)
Cosponsors
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
Last Action: Feb 6, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 861

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 6, 2007

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) 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 2007'.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

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

`926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.

 

[geronimotwo]

if this would work like a reciprical dl, then i like the idea. it's too bad the states can't figure it out on their own, as i would rather be done with any kind of federal laws.

 

[1911austin]

If this becomes law, I would travel to the commie states while carrying just to spite the liberals.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

While I like the idea of all states allowing CCW, and reciprocating, I DON'T like federal laws that usurp each state's right to decide for itself.

 

[71Commander]

While I like the idea of all states allowing CCW, and reciprocating, I DON'T like federal laws that usurp each state's right to decide for itself.

That argument is getting old. A gun is no different that any other commodity on the market and should be treated as such. Your state license regarding guns should be treated as any other state issued licensed. Honored by all states.

 

[Wasz]

If this passes I wont be able to carry at bars or restruants that serve alcohol.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Your state license regarding guns should be treated as any other state issued licensed. Honored by all states.

With the exception of drivers' licenses, almost no other state license is honored by other states. E.g., license to practice law, license to practice medicine, license to get married, license to install plumbing,... None of those are expressly protected in the U.S. Constitution either.

 

[Steve H]

If it passes it will be real interesting to watch California pull out of the Union........

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Federalizing CCW might look good on the surface, as it would force other countries like the California to recognize the CCW rights from real America states.

BUT, it would also open up CCW to a unified attack. Instead of attacking CCW in each state separately, the antis would be able to focus their political muscle on the federal level. And the destruction they wage would filter down to all of us. It's double edged sword. A federal CCW could be used to liberate Americans living in places like California and NJ, but it could also be used to enslave people from other states. Say the federal CCW law passes. State CCWs become obsolete. Gun owners everywhere rejoice that CCW is now open to the entire US. But then a few years down the road, the Dems take Congress again. And then split-voting lets another Dem President weasel into power. Combined with the already activist SC, they simply need to pass an ammendment to the federal CCW law already on the books. Instead of having to pass magazine capacity limits or suppressor bans in every state separately, they will be able to pass them for everyone in one motion.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I agree with Taurus owner. Unfortunately, I don't see this law being as positive as it appears on the surface. Telling the Federal government that they can have a say about our concealed carry laws is very dangerous. I don't see places like Chicago paying any attention to these laws when it comes down to it, anyway. They have a long history of doing whatever they want to.

 

[Libertylover]

"National standard" worries the hell out of me, being from NH. For those of you who aren't cool enough to say you're from here, the long and short of it is you fill out a form stating your address and also giving three references (the law was written in the 20's, I personally think the legislature needs to get rid of the references and any mention of "suitability" which is open to interpretation), pay your ten bucks, and in 14 days, they either have to give you your license, or tell you, in writing, why they didn't. You can then appeal it, and they have 14 days to hear you in court.

A "national standard" would likely destroy NH's system and force us to comply with the feds in our licensing standards. I highly doubt NH is ready to comply with the feds in licensing for CCW when we tell them to go pound sand over drivers' licenses. However, a raving pack of socialist lunatics HAS taken over (hopefully temorarily and to be rectified in a year and 3/4) both houses of our legislature, and Lynch (the governor) HAS shown himself to be demonstrably AGAINST self defense when he VETOED our version of the "Stand Your Ground" law, so right now we're up in the air.

National standards are dangerous.

 

[ugaarguy]

This legislation also doesn't help Alaska and Vermont residents since they they're allowed to carry concealed without a permit and their states don't issue them because of this.

 

[KenW.]

With the current Speaker of the House? Get real, it won't come up for a vote.

 

[44Brent]

If this passes I wont be able to carry at bars or restruants that serve alcohol.

False - go read the bill again. This applies ONLY to states such as Illinois and Wisconsin. Furthermore, there is no federal enforcement mechanism on these places. The bill simply does not protect people from state laws in these off-limit places.

 

[44Brent]

This legislation also doesn't help Alaska and Vermont residents since they they're allowed to carry concealed without a permit and their states don't issue them because of this.

FALSE - Go read the bill again. It allows them to carry in all 50 states. Furthermore, Alaska DOES issue optional licenses for the purpose of reciprocity.

 

[Pilgrim]

If it passes it will be real interesting to watch California pull out of the Union........

Can we help them pack?

Pilgrim

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

The last time states left the Union, a war was fought over it. Wouldn't it be funny if Kali tried it and no one cared?

 

[Autolycus]

You think that for all the lawyers and politicos we have in office they would have just read the 2nd Amendment? It says all we need to know about carrying guns.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While I like the idea of all states allowing CCW, and reciprocating, I DON'T like federal laws that usurp each state's right to decide for itself.

I don't get it.

On the one hand, most of us hold the view that the 2nd Amendment already tells the states that they can't restrict our right to keep and bear arms. Of course, the states ignore that.

So somebody in Congress has the fortitude to offer up a law to essentially "legalize the Constitution" (as bass-ackwards as that may seem) and gun owners are AGAINST it? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This legislation also doesn't help Alaska and Vermont residents since they they're allowed to carry concealed without a permit and their states don't issue them because of this.

Alaska does.

It isn't required, but they will issue you a permit if you request one, for the exact reason that some other states require a home state permit before they'll issue a non-resident permit.

 

[KnifeLawGuy]

Taurusowner and others,

I likewise share your concern about getting the feds involved in setting standards for CCW matters. The bill as written and presented in the original post, however, would appear to simply require states to recognize out-of-state permits, subject to the same restrictions as in-state permits.

For the states that don't issue permits (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Vermont), the law does appear to define a list of off-limits locations, "except to the extent expressly permitted by State law."

The proposed law is thus unlike the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (H.R. 218) signed into law a couple of years ago, which did set standards for active-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry nationwide, such as certification requirements, specific LE agency photo id requirements, annual quals for retired officers, etc. The proposed law appears to simply require a state to recognize and accept out-of-state permits as valid in that state, subject to that state's law concerning carry restrictions, such as off-limits locations.

As another poster noted, this might open up the door for more intrusive federal intervention down the road, although that possibility is of course directly present today.

While I have mixed feelings about this proposed federal law, the reality is that without such a law, the likelihood that the average law-abiding visitor will be able to carry in, say, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, California, etc., etc. anytime soon is very low. Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, there does not appear to be any specific sanction, criminal penalty or private cause of action against states or state officials that simply refuse to obey the law.

 

[Damien45]

If this passes I wont be able to carry at bars or restruants that serve alcohol.

Not too sure about the laws in PA, but every state I have been in has the same law.....no carrying (open or concealed) in an establishment that serves alcohol. So, how would the passing of this law change that for you?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Not too sure about the laws in PA, but every state I have been in has the same law.....no carrying (open or concealed) in an establishment that serves alcohol. So, how would the passing of this law change that for you?

You may carry concealed in a place that serves alcohol in Texas as long as the establishment does not derive 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales.

That 51% rule is already in existence for some other state alchohol laws so places like this have to post a red "51%" sign so when you enter a place like that it is obvious.

It's designed around restaurants that serve alcohol.



The purpose of this legislation it seems is to protect a traveller.

Well, if you are travelling, one of the places you will spend a lot of time is in restaurants. And, since nearly all restaurants serve alcohol these days, this whole thing turns into a bit of a joke doesn't it?

I'm on vacation with the family but we can only stop at Mc Donalds?

No, I'd still just rather avoid those backwards states, thanks.

On the surface this seems good, but I'm not sure what actual good it does.

 

[Zundfolge]

Not too sure about the laws in PA, but every state I have been in has the same law.....no carrying (open or concealed) in an establishment that serves alcohol. So, how would the passing of this law change that for you?

Here in Colorado I can legally CCW into a bar and even have a drink ... the law states that it is illegal for me to be armed and "under the influence", but doesn't say I can't sit in a bar and drink soda or have a drink with dinner.

I can understand laws against packing while drunk, but just being in a bar shouldn't be illegal any more than it should be illegal for those licensed to drive to be in a bar.

 

[Mainsail]

You read

..in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises…

and got

If this passes I wont be able to carry at bars or restruants that serve alcohol.

This is written in English, it’s not hard to understand.

This is pretty much the same wording we have here in WA (and other states). It means you can eat in Applebees but you cannot sit in the bar area. My GF and I went to a pizza place and the waitress tried to sit us in the bar. I told her I couldn’t sit in there so she sat us in the regular part. She never asked why.