National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alelks

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
33
Location
North Carolina
I came across this on USAcarry.com. You can see more here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-197

We need to support HR 197, here's the info...


National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced

Friday, January 23, 2009

U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), recently introduced H.R. 197-- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"--a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees.

The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) is expected to introduce the Senate companion bill in the near future. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!
 
No-thanks. We should let the states handle carry issues. Once the feds get their greasy fingers in the issue, they'll muck it up.

Minnesota does not require us to conceal. Alaska and Vermont (I think) don't require a permit at all. Florida requires fingerprints. Texas makes it a crime to carry WITH a permit if you show or print (I think). Anyway, you get the drift. The Feds would eventually make it THEIR issue and nationalize the standard. Maybe I like Minnesota's version of carry law better than that which the Feds would create. In fact, I'm sure I do.
 
Inter-state carry CCDW

Frankly, I like it the way it is now. My license is good in any state which is reciprocal with my state and vice versa. Of course, I avoid Illinois---that's a foreign country which doesn't recognize anyone. And of course, there is also Wisconsin! Traveling I avoid both of them. And, I find that's no problem anyway---they're both easy to avoid!
 
No-thanks. We should let the states handle carry issues. Once the feds get their greasy fingers in the issue, they'll muck it up.

Minnesota does not require us to conceal. Alaska and Vermont (I think) don't require a permit at all. Florida requires fingerprints. Texas makes it a crime to carry WITH a permit if you show or print (I think). Anyway, you get the drift. The Feds would eventually make it THEIR issue and nationalize the standard. Maybe I like Minnesota's version of carry law better than that which the Feds would create. In fact, I'm sure I do.
Click to expand...
There happen to be some of us stuck in states like IL though, and we would surely like the feds to force our state into it. So if it affects your laws somehow, as long as you can still carry, so what?
 
Frankly, I like it the way it is now. My license is good in any state which is reciprocal with my state and vice versa. Of course, I avoid Illinois---that's a foreign country which doesn't recognize anyone. And of course, there is also Wisconsin! Traveling I avoid both of them. And, I find that's no problem anyway---they're both easy to avoid!
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't my Texas CHL be good in Chicago? Answer: It SHOULD be good in Chicago. Why should any of us have to avoid any city. Dammit, I want to go to the Metropolitan Art Museum in NYC and I want my Glock 26 to come too...

You're not always going to be able to cross the metaphorical street to avoid trouble coming your way.
 
Bensdad is wrong about Texas. Intentional failure to conceal is what is the crime. Printing, the wind blowing open your jacket, the gun falling out of your el cheapo holster and suchlike is not intentionally failing to conceal.

That is a common misconception among people.
 
"it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses".

That just makes too much sence, the antis will fight it all the way.
 
I rarely leave the tri-state area, and can carry in each -- ME by resident permit, NH by non-resident permit, and VT just 'cause. Being able to carry in some hole like HI or CA or FL really doesn't matter to me enough to let the feds nose under the tent.
 
"it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses".
Click to expand...

Yeah, right now. Once they start meddling in the issue, there won't be anything "simple" about it.

There happen to be some of us stuck in states like IL though, and we would surely like the feds to force our state into it. So if it affects your laws somehow, as long as you can still carry, so what?
Click to expand...

So what? That's nice. We should all sacrifice our rights for yours?

You are not "stuck" in Ill. Mn is currently accepting refugees from your state.

Bensdad is wrong about Texas. Intentional failure to conceal is what is the crime.
Click to expand...

Fine, I'm wrong. That's not the point. The point is, carry laws are different in various states. Do you have to submit fingerprints in Tx? You will. Do you have to conceal in Az? You will. Do you have to provide references in Wy? You will. Do you have to pay an annual fee for the "privledge" of a permit in Vt? You will.

the feds nose under the tent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This first law may look good... innocent enough. But once they figure it's their business, they'll make a fine mess of it. NO-THANKS!
 
@ Bensdad

The bill states that the federal guidlines only apply in places that don't currently allow carry. If the state has a system, that state's rules prevail.

Get cake, eat cake.

Strangely, I'm from IL, now live in MN, so this thread is near & dear :)

Rmeju
 
This has the potential of being very awesome in the short term, and the near certainty of being a disaster in the long term. Letting the Feds into the issue just makes it more likely they will ban CCW nationally later on. I'd rather deal with this amongst the states at a slower pace then sell the soul of CCW to the Feds for a quick fix.
 
The point is, carry laws are different in various states. Do you have to submit fingerprints in Tx? You will. Do you have to conceal in Az? You will. Do you have to provide references in Wy? You will. Do you have to pay an annual fee for the "privledge" of a permit in Vt? You will.
Click to expand...

And this is the problem.

Everyone compares this to drivers licenses but have you noticed that basic driving laws are the same in all the states?

How do you do national CCW? I'll tell you. You take the state with the MOST restrictions and make everyone else fall to that guideline to get to "common ground"/

Or, you have all new Federal CCW guidelines written by the US Congress. You don't want that either.

This is a very very bad idea.

We have CCW in so many states today precisely because the Fed has stayed out of it.

State by state reciprocity is working pretty well too, most states add to those lists all the time.

If you live in one of the states that doesn't have any carry today, get to work.... or move.

Forcing national carry on those few remaining hardnose states isn't going to work. It's not a "back door".
 
And this is the problem.

Everyone compares this to drivers licenses but have you noticed that basic driving laws are the same in all the states?

How do you do national CCW? I'll tell you. You take the state with the MOST restrictions and make everyone else fall to that guideline.

Or, you have all new Federal CCW guidelines.

This is a very very bad idea.

We have CCW in so many states today precisely because the Fed has stayed out of it.
Click to expand...

Bingo. If CCW gets nationalized, the end result will look a lot less like Alaska or Texas and a lot more like Cali or NY. When the Feds get involved, we always end up more restricted.
 
I live in MN and like the way things are set up. I am greatfull for the fact that we finally have a carry law here in this primarily liberal state. I think it would be nice to have a law requiring reciprocity, but like most previous posters have stated, keep the FED out of it. After all, isn't that what the civil war was actually fought over? The individual rights for each state to govern themselves without FED interference?

BTW, I think in SD no permit is required to open carry(for residents).
 
Everyone compares this to drivers licenses but have you noticed that basic driving laws are the same in all the states?
Click to expand...

Actually, they're not. For instance, in most Southern states you can do a U-Turn at an intersection, not so in NY. In NJ, you can't pump your own gas. School bus passing/stopping laws differ in nearly every state. If you get a traffic ticket in another state and you have a NY driver's license, you don't get points off your license. In some states you can get a learner's permit at 15. I believe you have to be 17 to drive in NYC.

Bingo. If CCW gets nationalized, the end result will look a lot less like Alaska or Texas and a lot more like Cali or NY.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can carry in more places in Cali and NY than you can in many "free states". For instance, you can carry in bars in NY.

So, if federal law mirrored NY or CA law in terms of where you could carry, many Southern states would have much to gain.

The trouble is everyone on this board thinks they know CA and NY gun laws. The fact is, most simply parrot the phrase, "If I were you, I'd move out of (CA, NY, NJ, etc.)" NY has an AWB and it's a "may issue" state. Same with CA, except a stricter AWB. Pre-1994, NYS and CA were in better shape than Texas and many other Southern states as to what you can own, but CCW laws are still very good in comparison to many other states. Take NC or NM, there are so many restrictions on where you can carry it almost seems pointless to get a CHL. I say this every time one of these threads comes up: NYS has had CCW since 1936 and the way some of you speak, you'd think you grew up all your lives with CCW, which, until Texas and Florida made a push in the late 1980s/early 1990s, was basically a no-go in most of the South and "Free America".

You're telling me that you folks would throw away the chance to do a cross-country road trim from NYC to LA, where you could CCW the whole time? With this reciprocity, you could visit every major city in the US and bring your handguns with you.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most posters in that this issue, like most, is best left to the states. It might seem well and good for now when the bill is in favor of us, but once this power is recognized as a federal one it will be that way forever, and when things start going against us our "states rights" arguments will have far less clout.
It might look nice in the beginning but then again social security was a great idea when the average American died at 65...
 
Thank god I live in Florida, we might have to put with some bad drivers and some criminals from the islands but we can carry a gun(with a CC permit) I haven't seen the stats of late but home invasions and convience store robberies are down thanks to the castle law. I'd much rather have my state control the permitting not the feds.
 
I like the premise but not sure if the execution will match the expectations.

Also, you guys really expect this bill to have any chance with Nazi Pelosi, Hairy Reid, Doh Biden and The Obaminator in charge?

It will face multiple attempts to kill it off at every stage of the game and I doubt the Commandant in Chief will sign it either if it ever makes it that far.

However, for those who have no CCW rights and no reasonable expectations of ever getting one, (Los Angeles and San Francisco residents come to mind), it makes no difference other than having a lot of foreign staters being able to protect themselves while natives can't.
 
Bad Idea? Agreed.

State's Rights. Ninth Amendment. A very positive thing that reciprocity occurs because of agreements between states of the union. Do y'all want less than 600 federals, whose seats are very, very expensive to win, to have the authority to decide this issue, given the laborious tasks taken on by the majority of the individual state houses over the course of the last 20 + years? Like an IRA invested exclusively in mutual funds in the early 90's: a lifetime of work, all lost in one session.

Utah, et al. v. United States?
 
The Feds can easily make this a Federal issue under the penumbra of the Commerce Clause in that this facilitates interstate commerce due to eased travel requirements for all residents, same as the license reciprocity.

Just think of all the turf gobbled up under the Commerce Clause and it will not be a stretch on this one. It's quite scary, actually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
National Right-To-Carry Bill
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
LAK
L
M
  • Locked
SENATE VERSION OF NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ranger335v
R
jimmyraythomason
  • Locked
Right-to-carry reciprocity bill
Replies
6
Views
395
LAR-15
L
J
  • Locked
New bills for national CCW recognition introduced!
Replies
2
Views
488
Vitamin G
V
P
  • Locked
Stearns Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
Replies
2
Views
380
gc70
gc70
Back
Top