HR915. Let's support it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Rabbi

member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
1,532
Location
TN
HR 915 is a bill recently introduced to:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
Click to expand...

High time. I have written to Jim Cooper, our congresscritter here urging him to support it.
 
Hasn't Congress adjourned yet? If so, I *think* this will have to be re-introduced in the next session.

Regardless, it seems like a good idea.
 
My only problem with such a bill is that it treats law enforcement officers - and, even worse, FORMER LEOs - like super citizens. The simple fact is that each and every one of us is responsible for safety in our communities. The reason that we have LEOs (and we didn't, for the most part, until about 1850) is that society is so large and complex that we have a need for and can afford to pay people to do something on a full-time basis that each of us may only do once or twice in a lifetime.

I am particularly angry at bills that treat FORMER LEOs differently than normal citizens, because that is EXACTLY what they are. What, they HAD training 20 or 30 or 50 years ago at the academy, and had to qualify shooting at stationary paper targets once or twice a year WHEN THEY WERE IN UNIFORM? So what! In other words, they are no more qualified than most gun owners to carry safely, and may possibly be LESS qualified than those who have carry licenses and who take their responsibilities seriously. I've never been an LEO, but I fire thousands of rounds per year because I feel morally responsble to hit what I aim at (well, OK, its also fun, but that's not really the point here). I'm equipped to hit what I aim at to a greater extent than most active-duy police, let alone those retired for x number of years.

The problem with even having LEOs and ex-LEOs listed in a proposed bill is that it will end up with us "normal" civilians stripped out of it. More to the point, since there is ALREADY a "cop carry" bill that was signed into law recently, lots of Congresscritters won't even think about voting for this - it does them no good to have the proles armed, let alone packing heat everywhere they go. That's why I was against the original bill, because this one won't even get the right time of day from at least 50% of those who voted for the first one. National carry, or even national reciprocity in those states with carry laws, for non-LEOs was doomed at the moment the cop-carry bill was signed into law.

Still, I'll support this as a way of slicing away at the anti-gun bias of our laws, and so that no one has to spend extra money or time getting carry licenses from other states, but we can't stop with this alone. IF we get this bill, then we have to IMMEDIATELY start working to get ALL citizens the same privilege (and that's what carry licenses are - a revocable privilege, not a right) to carry in states that otherwise prohibit it, just like LEOs and former LEOs.
 
I agree that just because someone carries/carried a badge hardly means he is beyond reproach or even has a clue what he is doing. I've seen some LEO's who I thought were ready for the rubber-gun squad. In some ways he is worse than Joe Citizen since, as I mentioned elsewhere, his mindset is different from Joe's. But if this is what it takes to get support then so be it. A positive outcome is better than none at all.
 
The problem with even having LEOs and ex-LEOs listed in a proposed bill is that it will end up with us "normal" civilians stripped out of it. More to the point, since there is ALREADY a "cop carry" bill that was signed into law recently, lots of Congresscritters won't even think about voting for this - it does them no good to have the proles armed, let alone packing heat everywhere they go. That's why I was against the original bill, because this one won't even get the right time of day from at least 50% of those who voted for the first one. National carry, or even national reciprocity in those states with carry laws, for non-LEOs was doomed at the moment the cop-carry bill was signed into law.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right. No bill providing for national CCW reciprocity is ever going to pass, as things are now. The best we can hope for is a CCW compact, but some states (CA, NJ, MD for example) just won't join.
 
Why.

The rational behind extend this to former LEos is not to make them "super citizens", but rather to allow them to defend themselves and their families in non-"gun friendly" states after they retire,...and all the "bad guys' they put away are starting to get out with revenge on their minds. Same reason most judges and retired judges are alowed. Not endorsing - just explaining. So please ease all y'all's fingers of the triggers of them thare flamethrowers...
 
Incrementalism, my friends, incrementalism...

Any increase in the number of armed citizens is a plus in my book. Besides, shouldn't we be trying to hold a grassroots takeover of the police lobbyist groups, instead of antagonizing them?
 
I'll back the bill when I see the 2nd amendment says for LEOs and EX LEOs only. All things like this do is bring us closer to a police state. In the end this and 218 will be used to justify tanking away any non LEOs right to carry arms. No way are their lifes more in danger when they are out of state then a Non LEOs life is
 
No way are their lifes more in danger when they are out of state then a Non LEOs life is
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

The rational behind extend this to former LEos is not to make them "super citizens", but rather to allow them to defend themselves and their families in non-"gun friendly" states after they retire,...and all the "bad guys' they put away are starting to get out with revenge on their minds. Same reason most judges and retired judges are alowed.
Click to expand...


I've heard this theory put forth before. Bad guys have been getting out of prison for hundreds of years, yet I've not seen evidence of all these "revenge killings".
You see it in the movies all the time but, that doesn't make it fact.
I'll need a bit more evidence to believe that.

Another rationale I heard for LEO national carry was for "homeland defense". An out of state LEO has no more right or jurisdiction than any normal "civilian" to enforce the law or use a weapon.
So, unless they is given are given national jurisdiction (national police force?) what is the point?
 
In florida the rules for use of lethal force are the same for citizens as for police officers. Now, police officers, by virtue of having to lay hands on suspects and chase them around naturally put themselves in situations requiring lethal force more often than civilians, but everything else is the same.

The only difference I am aware of is when a cop shoots someone wrongfully they arent really punished. But that is more of a problem in the application of the law than the law itself.

That being said, I only support concealed carry laws that give no preferential treatment to any group. Rights are posessed by individuals. Powers are posessed by governments and their agents. Concealed carry is either a right for everyone or it isnt.
 
With the realities in the new Senate, we need to push hard for this. HR 915 is an excellent bill, expanding upon the full faith and credit clause of our constitution for our benefit, as well as giving Vermont, Alaska, and other state residents that may soon go Vermont or Alaska style CCW the ability to carry without a license needed.

When the gun lawsuit negligence thing comes up again in the Senate, I seriously doubt an AWB will be tacked on again. We have 3 new reliable votes against the AWB now, and previously it was a 52-47 margin. Daschle is gone, the new minority leader is very cool to the idea of ANY AWB amendments (cool as in "doesn't want it, it's political suicide").

2005 could be a banner year for us. It will be when the Stewart case will be decided, and I believe gun lawsuit liability limitations will pass both houses, DC Personal Protection, and if we continue pushing hard, national CCW reciprocity. This is probably the best opportunity we as gun owners have to roll back gun laws and take the fight directly to the anti-gunners since 1963.

Call, write, fax, email. Be a PITA to the politicians, and get them to vote for RKBA. No more excuses. No more presidential election looming, we have a clear anti-AWB majority in the Senate. Push them!
 
Hey I got an idea, since they are giving this SPECIAL treatment to former LEOs, I think it should be extended to former Soldiers Too. :cool:
 
That being said, I only support concealed carry laws that give no preferential treatment to any group. Rights are posessed by individuals. Powers are posessed by governments and their agents. Concealed carry is either a right for everyone or it isnt.
Click to expand...

Some things are just real simple. Do you want the right to carry in any state or not? You are saying you don't. The bill may not be everything everyone wants it to be, but it is an improvement, and a huge one. As they say, politics is the art of compromise.
 
I have to support any enhancments to the rights we want and if necessary, as is the case here, a little at a time is better then nothing!

Regarding some who feel or do not feel LEOs should have any more rights because of the training issues;
You are correct in that the hands on gun training and the target practice is minimal at best and that many gun owners could be better trained and better marksman.
You are missing one important element of the training process that should not be overlooked. All leos go thru a legals class that covers the use of deadly physical force. Here in NY it can be found under section 35 of the penal codes. Any one can read the codes for their state and I would highly recommend that all gun owners do. You might be surprised with what you find and I would be very surprised if you don't come away with some questions that YOU need answers to.
Cops are not superior but they have all been trained on the legalities of useing deadly force and can therefore be held accountable. That old
"Gee, I didn't know that" can't be used by LEOs or X LEOs.
 
This scares me, Just about anything the Federal Gov does scares me though.

Read it carefully, they want to develop a "national standard" This can lead to nothing but trouble. They can take the most draconian standard and force it on all states.

repeat after me: "The federal government is not our friend" We will open an uncloseable pandoras box if we allow the Feds to start having any say so in CC.
 
Trapper,
go back and read the bill before you spew paranoia all over the computer. :banghead:
 
Wait a minute...

There's something wrong with this particular bill that I didn't catch before. I thought this was HR 990. It isn't. The "National Standard" part didn't catch my eye until now.

The bill we need to support is not HR915 (The Stearns bill), it's HR 990 (The Hostettler bill).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00990:

HR 990 is a superior reciprocity bill over HR 915 for the following reasons:

1) It's simpler. It simply reads this:

`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--

`(1) carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

2) It does not attempt to put in a "national standard" into the states where licenses are not issued. The law itself basically states if there is a specific prohibition against possession of a firearm in a certain place, that would control whether or not HR 990 protects you against prosecution.

For example, before Ohio became a shall-issue state, there was still specific prohibitions against you carrying any sort of firearm into a Class D establishment that serves alcohol, as well as a few other places.

Same with Illinois. You would be exempt from the requirements of the FOID Act as well as the UUW act, but you would not be exempt if there's something in the ILCS that prohibits possession of handguns in a certain place, like a bar (I'm not sure, since UUW effects both open and concealed carry in that state, I haven't really looked it up.

3) It's Vermont/Alaska friendly. You a resident of these states? Can you carry under the laws of that particular state? You're covered.

4) You possess a license in any state, and you get to carry in every state. What does that mean?

For example, you're a resident of the state of NJ, NY, HI, IL, or some other people's republic.

Fine, just get a permit from Florida, or Utah. Carry at will. Live in NYC? Get a premise license, and then get a Florida carry permit. You're covered even in the mean streets of NYC.

So yes, HR990 is the superior bill. It goes along with the full intent of the full faith and credit clause. :)
 
I like CZ-100's idea of CCW for ex-soldiers.

In fact, I think we should push for the LEO bill specifically to make it easier to pass a CCW for soldiers.

Imagine the debates: "You mean that cops are more privileged than the brave young men and women who defended our country???" :D

Of course, there are many, many millions of ex-soldiers ;)

Think "strategery"...
 
It is a very bad idea to have the Fed.gov shove *our* agenda down the throats of states like California and New Jersey. Not only will such precedent come back to bite us in the ass someday *soon*, but it is a clear violation of the U.S. constitution.


Look you people in evil states. If you don't like it there, MOVE. No one is stopping you. I did it and you can do it to. Stop using the Fed to do what you should be doing yourself at your own local level.
 
There's something wrong with this particular bill that I didn't catch before. I thought this was HR 990. It isn't. The "National Standard" part didn't catch my eye until now.
Click to expand...

The "national standard" has nothing to do with licensing. It has to do with carrying in places that do not have carry permits. I think it is wise to put some kind of national standard in otherwise states like CA will restrict out of state holders from carrying anywhere. Also it would be a nightmare of enforcement. Take two CCWs, one from TN and one from KY and they go to Noo York for a meeting. After they go to a restaurant that serves liquor. The CCW from TN has now violated his state law while the CCW from KY has not. Makes no sense. Have one standard unless the state imposes something else.

It is a very bad idea to have the Fed.gov shove *our* agenda down the throats of states like California and New Jersey. Not only will such precedent come back to bite us in the ass someday *soon*, but it is a clear violation of the U.S. constitution.
Click to expand...

Can anyone explain the logic of this statement? It seems obvious that those who have CCW's would like to be able to carry anywhere they go, regardless of what state they are in. It seems equally obvious that some states, like CA, will never pass this legislation otherwise. Look at all the turncoats and frauds that delayed passage in WI and KS. So now the Feds will enable us to do what we want. And someone is still griping about it?? :confused:
 
The "national standard" has nothing to do with licensing. It has to do with carrying in places that do not have carry permits. I think it is wise to put some kind of national standard in otherwise states like CA will restrict out of state holders from carrying anywhere. Also it would be a nightmare of enforcement. Take two CCWs, one from TN and one from KY and they go to Noo York for a meeting. After they go to a restaurant that serves liquor. The CCW from TN has now violated his state law while the CCW from KY has not. Makes no sense. Have one standard unless the state imposes something else.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

HR990 only says "terms of the license". It does not mean the CPZ's of the state you're licensed in would transfer. It means that if you're carrying on a restricted Massachusetts LTC, or some other state's restricted LTC, you have to comply with the stuff on the license itself. Here's what the proposed law says:

"may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'."

Now, are you following me so far?

What this basically says is that if there's a specific prohibition in state laws of where you happen to be carrying, that controls, whether that be as a carry licensee licensed by that particular state, or as a person who's carrying on their DL (Alaska and Vermont residents), LEO's, and such (though HR990 was introduced before HR218 passed.

Give you an example: I'm a Washington resident. My friend is an Idaho resident. We both have unrestricted permits from multiple states. We go to New York State, or we go to Oregon. The CPZ's on licensees and other parts of the code will apply to us in the state in which we are carrying in, specifically NY or OR.

In states that have no provision for licensing and generally forbid CCW to civilians, , like the big bad four (Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, and Illinois), you have to remember that even though those states forbid CCW, they still have code section provisions that prohibit carrying of a firearm in certain locations, often with more enhanced penalties.

Wisconsin, for example, bans carrying of a firearm into taverns (I beleive, if I'm wrong, then they may prohibit other places). It does not differentiate between open and concealed carry (concealed already being prohibited by another statute), so it applies as a rule to open carry. My license in WA would be valid anywhere in WI except in a place like a tavern, or some other place that is specifically enumerated in the WI's legal code. HR990 exempts me from the general CCW prohibition, but it doesn't exempt me from the tavern provision, because it's specific and not general prohibition on CCW.

If California were to put up a bunch of specific restrictions on carrying by non-residents, it would likely be struck down by the courts as a violation of equal protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top