How do we get a National Right to Carry Law enacted?

[Nom de Forum]

What can we as the common people at the grass-roots level of politics do to influence our leaders, in ways similar to how the common people influenced the Founding Father's political actions, to enact a National Right to Carry Law? I suggest we discuss what we can is the minimum of freedoms to be provided by the law, tactics for overcoming political obstacles, and how to motivate political leaders to take action. After achieving the difficult task of enacting a law providing the minimum of freedoms desired we can strive for increasing freedom. Just getting our foot in the door will make it easier to walk all the way through the door later.

I think the bare minimum, not my preferred minimum, of a National Right to Carry Law should be along the lines of this gist of a comment Sam1911 made in another thread: People have the right to carry in all States but the burden is on the visitor to know the laws where s/he is.

 

[Sam1911]

Call your congress-persons. Write your congress-persons. Petition the NRA (and any other national RKBA groups you support) to encourage them and them know that you want this to be a priority in their list of efforts. And encourage everyone you know to do the same.

If, by chance, you happen to know anyone who is on the legislative staff of your US Senators or Representatives, and you believe those officials might be willing to author or co-author or at least support national RTC legislation, talk to them and offer your encouragement and support for that effort.

in ways similar to how the common people influenced the Founding Father's political actions

I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that the common people influenced the Founding Fathers' political actions to any degree greater than merely that they were all members of (an array of) societies at the time and must have had some idea which way the social winds were blowing. So we're going to have to have more concrete and present ideas here than imaginings about what Bill the liveryman or James the apothecary might have said to Thomas Jefferson over a pint of slip of demitasse of syllabub.

I mean, if you happen to take your luncheon at the same bistro where your US Senator prefers to dine, maybe you can get yourself invited to share a table and discuss the matter (wo)man-to-(wo)man, but I think most congressmen tend to have a near-endless line of influential supplicants vying for their attention near 24 hours a day and aren't terribly likely to leave themselves as vulnerable as that.

 

[X-Rap]

How do we get a National Right to Carry Law enacted?

Simple, vote for Trump.

People have the right to carry in all States but the burden is on the visitor to know the laws where s/he is.

This is as it should be and will be eventually if left to follow present trajectory of state by state reciprocity.
If mandated at a national level I'd expect to see some states that are presently restrictive to become worse and the opposite from the less restrictive ones.
Do you really think NY,MA,CA,NJ,IL to name a few, will keep their laws as they are when someone from a state that requires little or no scrutiny to get a permit can just enter and be treated as one of theirs who has had an unreasonable amount of mandated training and background checks not to mention the requirement of some states to list qualified weapons on the specific permit.
The laws will be changing in those states faster than you can say don't do it.

That of course is the best scenario, it could get much worse.

 

[deadin]

I have a horrible feeling that if the Feds ever pass a National Right to Carry law they may model it after NY,MA,CA,NJ & IL.
Do we really want to take that chance??

 

[Sam1911]

They may, X-Rap, but it might be worth noting that there actually are plenty of instances now where an out-of-state visitor is less constrained under the laws of a state than its own residents are, and the laws haven't been changed to "fix" that.

It might be hard to picture exactly what would be accomplished (or what harm done) by, say, NJ passing even more restrictive laws simply because out-of-staters can now carry there. More restrictive laws ON WHAT?



The one probability that I see as a result in a few places would be the "FOPA" problem. To wit: FOPA is an affirmative defense against the charge of possessing an weapon illegally in a state you're passing through. However, the state can still charge you and force you to come to court and hire a lawyer to present your defense -- just as harassment even though eventually the federal law will have to be followed and you acquitted. I see a big potential issue there, where out-of-state gun carriers in NY or NJ would be arrested, locked up, and put through trial even though it is inevitable that they will be exonerated and released, thanks to the federal law.

When you'll be faced with arrest, detention, time off work/loss of income or even livelihood, and $10K or $15K in unrecoverable lawyer's fees just to WIN your case, that sort of thing tends to have quite a chilling effect on the whole endeavor.

 

[Sam1911]

I have a horrible feeling that if the Feds ever pass a National Right to Carry law they may model it after NY,MA,CA,NJ & IL.
Do we really want to take that chance??

As I said elsewhere:

There is simply much disagreement, much confusion, much concern, and maybe even a touch of misunderstanding about what a "National Right to Carry" law might look like. Or what it is likely to look like if one is ever actually floated through Congress.

The very most optimistic of gun rights folks believe it would simply say, "All states must recognize a gun carry permit issued by any other state." This would be exactly like the law that doesn't exist which makes all states recognize each others' drivers' licenses.

The very most pessimistic of gun rights folks believe it would encourage or somehow force states to put into place a federally mandated set of gun carry rules, checks, restrictions, etc. if their citizens were to be authorized to carry out of their own state. In other words, if your state's carry license process and laws are less restrictive than, say, New York's, you can't enjoy the privilege.

Others say this is a states' rights issue and sticking the federal government's nose into it is unacceptably bad (continuance of current) precedent.

It is extremely easy to be "for" national right-to-carry, but a lot harder to explain exactly what it WILL look like.

And:

...or maybe... Just maybe... We'd have nationwide carry and we'd be subject to laws of individual states and it wouldn't be any more complex than that.

And that is the very best of the various possibilities which we could possibly hope to see. That would be pretty nifty, (setting aside the questions of expanding federal government control and Commerce Clause inflation some of us do rage against).

The other possibilities range from "not so good" to "downright awful," but aside from wishful thinking or fearful pessimism, there's no actual way to predict which -- if any -- we'll ever see leave the floor of congress and head off to receive the President's veto.

...do we really want to take that chance?

The thing is, it is hard to see what "chance" we're taking. Yeah, it would suck to have any federal law come down that said, "You can carry in all states IF you meet these extremely rigid and difficult steps and rules..." But that wouldn't change the existing situation at all. It wouldn't make anything WORSE than it is now, just provide a possible (if very difficult) additional option.

There seems to be no plausible reason to think the feds would somehow try (or be able) to negatively alter existing state laws which already establish CCW and reciprocity.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It looks like there has been a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill introduced in Congress regularly since 2007:

• 2007
  
  
• 2009
  
  
• 2011
  
  
• 2012
  
  
• 2014
  
  
• 2015

Obviously these bill have consistently been unsuccessful.

So --

• Has the design and approach of this bills been inherently flawed in some way to make them unacceptable? The text of each bill is available at the links I've posted, so someone might want to review the bills from that perspective.
  
  
• Have there been any specific objections raised to the manner in which these bills would accomplish their purpose? If so, would there be any answers to those objections which answers would not undermine the purpose of the bills? That would be another area for proponents of a national right to carry to explore.
  
  
• Is the idea of a national right to carry simply not politically acceptable? Are there any attributes or trade-offs which could make it politically acceptable?
  
  
• Who has been opposing this bills in Congress? Would it be politically viable during future election cycles to replace those Senators and Congress Members with person more inclined to support a national right to carry?
  
  
• Where is the grass roots opposition to national right to carry? Why are those people concerned about it? Can some of those concerns be answered? Are there ways, through a public relations push or otherwise, to ameliorate that opposition?

We're not exactly flying blind here. We've been failing at this for at least eight years. What can the proponents of a national right to carry learn from how and why we've been failing?

 

[danez71]

"How" and "If" the founding fathers were influenced is not really on topic for the THR and wont contribute any benefit to the thread. Horse-back and smoke signals...?; not relevant.

I encourage the Mods to graciously spend the time to edit as needed.

I also think this should be moved to the "Activism" section which has been terribly slow recently.

Sorry Nom.


I think Sam has largely answered the question already. Its kind of obvious what we can do. Its a matter of organizing and actually following through.


People saying it wont work because of a bunch of reasoning that we already over come today with other topics is really just FUDD.


Oversimplified example of what could happen is.

In light of the recent SCOTUS rulings, People have the right to carry a loaded firearm outside the home, un-encumbered by permits, in some manner whether that's OC or CC.

A State may choose to permit OC or CC but not both.

A State may not limit the Right to carry to less than 75% of the geographical area of each City, County, etc of/or the State.

Ingress and Egress to geographical areas may not be limited by the selection of the (up to) 25% 'no gun zones'.

The State is mandated to train the appropriate government personnel using the monies appropriated from the money grubbing schemes already in existence.

Wrongful prosecution of citizens will result in Federal prosecution of the indiviguals responsible for violating the citizens Rights.


Done!

If my pipe dream was only that simple.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"How" and "If" the founding fathers were influenced is not really on topic for the THR and wont contribute any benefit to the thread. Horse-back and smoke signals...?; not relevant.

I encourage the Mods to graciously spend the time to edit as needed.

I also think this should be moved to the "Activism" section which has been terribly slow recently.

Sorry Nom.

No need for an apology danez71. I agree that how and if the founding fathers were influenced is not really on topic for THR. I mentioned such influence occurring as an example worthy of emulation. I am sure we are all aware that posting hundreds of words in multiple posts to defend an opinion on this topic made after the misunderstanding of a trivial comment made by another poster is a mistake.

I really like what Frank has written in post #7. Glad to see him post something that greatly merits study and consideration. I will thoroughly study and consider it. Knowing what has not worked in the past is half the battle in discovering what will work in the future at the grass-roots and national politic levels. Thank you Frank for making such a valuable post.

 

[X-Rap]

It might be hard to picture exactly what would be accomplished (or what harm done) by, say, NJ passing even more restrictive laws simply because out-of-staters can now carry there. More restrictive laws ON WHAT?

A requirement to have qualified with a specific carry piece and have it listed on your permit would be one possible restriction that would impede a non resident.
I'd also point to states like Ill. that allow for CC but have such restrictions that it almost makes it impractical even for residents to effectively carry .
Of course any given state could also simply ban any CCW carry like Ill recently was although I thing the Genie is out of the bottle now which only makes me more confident that within a decade we will have nationwide reciprocity without any federal interference.

 

[fastbolt]

What can we ... do ... to enact a National Right to Carry Law?...

Presuming such a federal license would even pass muster as being within the province of the fed/gov ...

Probably one of two things.

Be prepared to accept whatever application, background investigation, written testing, training and renewal rules (and frequency) the fed/gov feels is appropriate.

Or ...

Be prepared to have the House/Senate get together and use LEOSA as the template. That would probably mean specific state licensing and meeting a minimum level of standards required by the licensee's state of residence, and annual qualification to whatever existing state standards may be required.

It took a lot of effort and compromise before HR218 became LEOSA, and it's already been tweaked and revised.

So, you want to give the fed/gov the authority to license people for CCW and impose any and all requirements that may be needed to get enough states to agree to such a thing, including annual qualifications?

Just imagine their eagerness to be able to impose new fees (taxes) to help offset budget problems.

 

[Sam1911]

Presuming such a federal license would even pass muster as being within the province of the fed/gov ..

I don't think any of the proposals floated in congress to date have included a federal license.

I believe the effort here is to simple enforced national reciprocity.

 

[yugorpk]

Presuming such a federal license would even pass muster as being within the province of the fed/gov ...

Doesnt stop them with anything else. You think with national carry based on reciprocity they are going to suddenly find religion and contain the over reach of the federal government. Yeah, I do too.

 

[Midwest]

Right now New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii are states that do not issue carry permits to anyone. And forget what you read about "may issue". If you or I lived in those states, we are not getting a permit.

New York and California do issue carry permits in come counties. Rhode Island is said to be 1/2 carry and 1/2 no carry. Illinois at least if you have a permit from your own state you, can car carry in your glove compartment. (Try that in New Jersey!).

Point is until those states change their carry laws, there is not going to be a national right to carry. The state with the worst handgun laws is NY State and it's been that way since 1911. If you enter that state with a handgun and you do not have a handgun permit from New York State, you are going to jail.

Is New York going to agree to a National Right to Carry? What do you think? Who is Governor of that state? He is the one who basically told law abiding gun owners in that state to go to hell after signing the SAFE ACT into law.

Is New Jersey going to allow people from outside the state to carry in NJ? It's not going to happen, as it is there is talk of enacting more gun control after Christie leaves office. Sure I would like to visit some friends in NJ and be able to legally carry. But it is not going to happen.

I would like to see it happen and unless a judge orders all states to make carry permits available to it's residents. A National Right to Carry is not going to happen.

And regarding LEOSA and including regular citizens. Well I too had the same idea and you can read about it here on why it can't happen. Read it below...


Amend LEOSA to have 50 state carry?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=769059

"Really? That's it? Do you know what "LEOSA rules" are? Do you know what the law actually says?
...
So beyond the policy issued addressed by others, the proposed simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite."


"I doubt that it would be able to get enough support at the federal level. It took a fair amount of effort to get LEOSA passed in the first place."


"It looks like there are an awful lot of rules there. So what rules, exactly, would apply to a private citizen?

That the citizen carry a particular form of identification?

That the identification the citizen carries complies with the requirements of 926B(d) or 926C(d)?

That the citizen has qualified (and periodically re-qualified) with his firearm in accordance with 926B(c)(4) or 926C(c)(4)?

Any other clause or provision which could be interpreted as a "rule" under the LEOSA?


So beyond the policy issued addressed by others, the proposed simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite."


"As already stated, LEOSA has its foundation in law enforcement. Non-LE affiliation would not fly. Also, LEOSA does NOT mandate that a department qualify its retired officers, so trying to have a non-LE acceptance into something that is a "maybe", would not be a good thing either."

Note: All the quotes are from THR's own forum. There are no copyright issues here.....
.

 

[Sol]

$queaky wheel$ get the grea$e.

A lot of money to a lot of people if you are serious to get something of this magnitude passed.

Im serious too.

Politicians are like machines, and require lubricant frequently and in copius amounts too. Their lubricant money, stocks and prestigious jobs.

 

[danez71]

It looks like there has been a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill introduced in Congress regularly since 2007:

• 2007
  
  
• 2009
  
  
• 2011
  
  
• 2012
  
  
• 2014
  
  
• 2015

Obviously these bill have consistently been unsuccessful.

So --

• Has the design and approach of this bills been inherently flawed in some way to make them unacceptable? The text of each bill is available at the links I've posted, so someone might want to review the bills from that perspective.
  
  
• Have there been any specific objections raised to the manner in which these bills would accomplish their purpose? If so, would there be any answers to those objections which answers would not undermine the purpose of the bills? That would be another area for proponents of a national right to carry to explore.
  
  
• Is the idea of a national right to carry simply not politically acceptable? Are there any attributes or trade-offs which could make it politically acceptable?
  
  
• Who has been opposing this bills in Congress? Would it be politically viable during future election cycles to replace those Senators and Congress Members with person more inclined to support a national right to carry?
  
  
• Where is the grass roots opposition to national right to carry? Why are those people concerned about it? Can some of those concerns be answered? Are there ways, through a public relations push or otherwise, to ameliorate that opposition?

We're not exactly flying blind here. We've been failing at this for at least eight years. What can the proponents of a national right to carry learn from how and why we've been failing?

All good stuff Frank. Thanks for linking the Bills.

This is a HUGE task. In my experience, breaking it down into smaller parts makes it easier (less overwhelming)


One of the things that "I" do is to look for similarities and differences.

• 2007, 2009, and 2011 are all the same Bill.
• 2012, 2014, and 2014 are pretty similar to each other and, of course similar to the other 3 years. But there are noticeable differences.
  
• All were introduced by Republicans.
  
• Very very few Democrats as co-sponsors - At least 1 has No Dem co-sponsors.
  
• All either failed to make it out of the House (introduced only) or, if the made it out of the House, failed to get past the Senate.
  
• ALL of them, regardless of title, are some form of CCP Reciprocity (Not a true National Right To Carry in my opinion)

1st pass evaluation (not rocket science):

• It appears we have the ears of the Republicans; of course not all
  
• The Republicans need control of the House and Senate.
  
• We need a majority in the House and Senate to get something through even if it isn't ideal.

Observations:

• The slaves and women didn't get every thing they wanted (and deserved) immediately; they got it incrementally.
  
• Our 2A Rights that have been stripped away have been done incrementally.
  
• The Dems have been playing Chess while the Republicans have been playing Checkers

Simple strategy:

VOTE! damn it....VOTE!


We have success in getting the (R's) in control of the House.... we must extend that into the Senate.



Perhaps a simple strategy to be built upon is possibly someone could start making a list of ALL of the Authors and co-sponsors of the previous Bills (in the House)

We need to write to them and thank them.... Including... yes, "Including" the Dems.

Perhaps someone could also make a list of who voted for and against in the Senate.

We can then start targeting where we need to.

 

[Hypnogator]

All it would take to get a very acceptable national-carry law would be to pass a law denying all Federal law enforcement funds to any state that does not recognize the concealed-carry permits of all other states. Of course, it'll have to be rammed down NY, NJ, CA & HI's throats, but it's doable.

Citizens traveling armed to other states would have only the restrictions imposed on them by their own states. No "national standard" to be met.

The fact that the unwashed masses from the flyover states can't be prevented from carrying concealed in the elite locales of the Anointed will encourage quiet revolutions in those states, loosening carry restrictions there, as well.

 

[BSA1]

Where is this "grass roots" support you are talking about?

As this election campaign is heating up it is obvious that many Americans are fed up with the Federal Government and no longer trust the President, our elected Representatives and Federal Agencies to put the needs of it's citizens first and work on fixing our deep domestic problems.

I am adamantly oppose to giving the Federal Government anymore power especially in regards to any of my rights to bear and keep arms.

Instead of expanding the power of the Federal Government how about reducing it's authority by removing silencers / surpressors and $200.00 tax from the NFA?

 

[oneounceload]

As this election campaign is heating up it is obvious that many Americans are fed up with the Federal Government and no longer trust the President, our elected Representatives and Federal Agencies to put the needs of it's citizens first and work on fixing our deep domestic problems.

I am adamantly oppose to giving the Federal Government anymore power especially in regards to any of my rights to bear and keep arms.

+1; the LAST thing we need is the Fed involved. The regs of NJ, NY, MD, DC and similar places will become the standard by which ALL gun laws will be made - simply put, no thanks

 

[danez71]

Where is this "grass roots" support you are talking about?

As this election campaign is heating up it is obvious that many Americans are fed up with the Federal Government and no longer trust the President, our elected Representatives and Federal Agencies to put the needs of it's citizens first and work on fixing our deep domestic problems.

I am adamantly oppose to giving the Federal Government anymore power especially in regards to any of my rights to bear and keep arms.

Instead of expanding the power of the Federal Government how about reducing it's authority by removing silencers / surpressors and $200.00 tax from the NFA?

With no respect intended.....

We get it. You're opposed. So this thread isn't for you. If you want to talk about removing silencer restrictions and the $200 tax stamp... show a bit of respect and start your own thread instead of whoring up this one. We don't need to give up power to the Feds and saying we do is FUDD talk.

+1; the LAST thing we need is the Fed involved. The regs of NJ, NY, MD, DC and similar places will become the standard by which ALL gun laws will be made - simply put, no thanks

Again, no disrespect, but you don't know that will happen so do say it as if it is fact. That's just FUDD talk, pure and simple.



Seriously folks, have some shred of common respect for the forum and quit sabotaging threads with FUDD and off topic comments.

 

[Sam1911]

+1; the LAST thing we need is the Fed involved. The regs of NJ, NY, MD, DC and similar places will become the standard by which ALL gun laws will be made - simply put, no thanks

Again, no disrespect, but you don't know that will happen so do say it as if it is fact. That's just FUDD talk, pure and simple.

To be honest, I don't even really understand what this claim means. The proposed laws so far say that the credentials granted by any state must be recognized by all states.



Nothing in any of these has anything whatsoever to do with establishing federal standards or restrictions or licenses or really "gun laws" of any kind.

So why are we seeing so many seemingly completely blind and deaf resistance arguments, disconnected from any of the actual proposals floated to accomplish this goal?




If the subject here was "establishing federal mandatory standards for carrying a gun" I'd be completely in agreement, but seeing as no such thing has been proposed, the loudest shouted opposition is simply baffling.

 

[deadin]

The proposed laws so far say that the credentials granted by any State must be recognized by all States.

So, let me get this straight. The proposed law says that a State's carry permit that has a "Shall Issue" law with no requirements for testing and training other than passing a background check, (Think Washington) will have to be recognized by all States regardless of their local laws. (Think NY, or any State that has performance testing requirements.)

I don't see this flying very far.......

 

[oneounceload]

^^^ Exactly

I am one who wants LESS of a Federal government in every aspect of our lives. If 85% of it went away tomorrow, it wouldn't be too soon...

 

[The Alaskan]

10th Amendment anyone?

I'm just going to toss this out there, because I haven't seen anyone mention it yet.

How do you feel this idea will be affected by the 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government to the individual states?

As I see it, this speaks directly to our two-layer government system, wherein some powers are strictly within the purview of the Federal government, and others are strictly within the purview of state governments.

Granted the 2nd Amendment is definitely a Federal issue, but, as much as most would wish it, the 2nd Amendment is not your carry permit. Much legal precedent has been set granting local governments the authority to license gun carry in public places.

I think the best one could hope for would be an amendment/rider to a Federal spending bill, such as an omnibus of some sort, related to crime. For example, one would get a rider on a bill allocating Federal funds for law enforcement (or anything really) stating that a condition for receiving the funds is the passing of a shall issue CCW law in the state. (That's how No Child Left Behind works, and that's how we got speed limits back in the day.)

But I'm sure some lawyer will come in here and tell me I'm wrong any minute now.

 

[shootniron]

This is a state's rights issue...Fed's have no business in it.

I don't want them passing any more laws that regulate my guns or my rights...if a state will not recognize my permit...I can choose whether to go there or not...I don't need big brother looking out for me...obviously, a lot of y'all do.