reciprocity

[archigos]

H.R. 822 National Reciprocity (Contact your representative!)

From http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6331:

Friday, February 25, 2011

Last week, H.R. 822, was introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.). The measure would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill also applies to Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

To read more about this legislation, please click here.

Please contact your representative to urge them to vote for this bill!*
This bill only missed by a narrow margin last year when we had fewer allies in Congress.
You can use the NRA's "Write Your Reps" tool to look up your representative and their contact info.

Lets make this the year we come one step closer to reclaiming this basic human right!

*Update: There is some debate on this subject. Please, read through it and come to an educated decision before taking action.

 

[armoredman]

As long as the bill DOESN'T give them the power to control the thing. If it's just recognition via Full Faith and Credit, absolutely, all for it.

 

[j.m.s.]

http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Art...-Reciprocity-Bill-Introduced-In-US-House.aspx

God, PLEASE!!!!!!!

 

[kansersurvivor]

And thus the reason I voted for Democrat, Heath Shuler.

 

[Gouranga]

hmmm. Now I wonder, how would this apply to say NYS? In NC for example you have 1 type of CCW. My understanding is NY has various levels, you can get carry for home and business, or to the range or in rare cases unrestricted.

In NC we have unrestricted. With the states we have reciprocity with already, you do have to abide by their carry laws but with a system like NY's I wonder how that would mesh.

 

[j.m.s.]

I have CCW in NY, but those that have restricted and want to carry to other states could appeal theirs. You are allowed to try again for CCW after getting restricted.

 

[X-Rap]

Nothing personal to you guys that live in these restrictive states but I prefer the Fed. Gov. to stay out of the gun business as much as possible including saying/allowing who gets to CC. There are a number of states that already have reciprocity agreements with over 30 other states and are adding more all the time. Const. carry is fast on the march and states like Iowa that only a few years ago didn't seem to have a chance have passed very good CC laws with great rec. I say let this remain a states rights issue and help those still lagging push theirs through.

 

[Gouranga]

XRap, I can see where you are coming from but the only way we will ever get reciprocity with CA and NY is a bill like this.

Then again...it could be a trojan horse. Once this bill is passed the feds will have a vested interest in ensuring state CCW laws meet specific requirements/restrictions which would probably closely resemble NY's and CA's.

 

[X-Rap]

You answered the question already, Before all the backroom agreements are made we will be the lesser. I would rather see NY an CA standing on either end of 46 states that have come together on their own and let the anti politicians explain why their constituants are not able to have the same rights as the rest as they are shown the door. I leave out the other two states because of geography.
If I could point to a gun related federal law or program that expanded our rights and improved our condition I might feel better about it.

 

[swinokur]

HR 822 says if you have a restricted permit, another state must treat it as the highest level permit, IOW unrestricted.

Congress is not trying to dictate to the states as far as their laws go. They will still be allowed to promulgate all their own handgun laws. What this law says is thet all states that issue permits must recognize all others. This is no different than marriages, divorces, etc. Although you would think the justification for this is the "full faith and credit" clause they are actually using the Commerce Clase in Article 1 Section 8 and a few others. Attached is a copy of the Federal Register where the representatives who sponsor this are now required to give Constitutional justification for a proposed law.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As I've said many times before:

No, [size=+1]NO[/size] [size=+2]NO[/size] [size=+3]NO[/size] [size=+4]NO[/size] [size=+4]NO![/size]

This would be the Feral(Federal) government saying that it is OK for it AND THE SEVERAL STATES to meddle in - read as infringe upon - the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. It's a grab for power disguised as gilding a Lilly that all levels of government have been forbidden by the Second Amendment to even pick let alone gild.

I don't care what their "good intentions" are, this bill will have unintended consequences, is too easy to misconstrue, and -dare I say it again? - forbidden ground to all levels of government.

Write to your representatives and senators; their wives, girlfriends, hookers, boyfriends, bookies, benefactors, contributors, mentors, enemies, friends, and anyone else you can find that has any influence on them and tell them [size=+4]NO![/size]

Woody

 

[Gary Slider]

Just remember that if they pass a Federal Law they can change it any time they wish. The can add or what is unheard of in most instances subtract from it. Keep the feds out of it. If you want to get the feds to do anything remove all restrictions on all Federal Property except federal buildings. There is still a lot of federal property off limits. They will keep that all off limits but tell the states you have to let those with a permit/license from any state carry in your state. Let the feds change their policy before they even think of putting more items on the state. Just My Opinion.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Horrible idea, I'm completely against such a thing.

There is no reason the Federal Government needs to be involved.
No good can come of it.

Once you put the Fed in the middle they will want to modify things so that it's "fair", and that usually ends in disaster.

 

[danez71]

yippee skippee

Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995

I wonder why I dont remember this

 

[TexasRifleman]

2 threads merged.

 

[HD_Ride]

Had it not been for the post of ConstitutionCowboy, Gary and TexasRifleman I probably would have thought it would be a good idea as well, now I don’t know what to think… NJ has only has CCW for Politically connected so looking at this for what it is perhaps it may have been good for us, that said I completely understand the views of the members above. It probably is wise to keep the Feds out of it. Like they say, once the elephant gets his nose under the tent before you know it the entire elephant is inside, or something like that…..

 

[armoredman]

"Level the playing field" is a common Federal mantra, however I don't want AZ Constitutional Carry "leveled" to California or New Jersey "level". On second thought to my above post, yes, let's kill this and keep Fed.Gov out of it completely.

 

[archigos]

hmmm. Now I wonder, how would this apply to say NYS? In NC for example you have 1 type of CCW. My understanding is NY has various levels, you can get carry for home and business, or to the range or in rare cases unrestricted.

I can't speak for the other states, but in NY, there is only one level (apart from NYC and the "special" downstate counties). If you have a permit, even if it says "restricted", that is not a legal restriction but the preference of the issuing judge. It carries with it no legal weight.

I see all those who are saying "no" to this, and I completely agree with your motives - however, I'm not sure that this is a bad move, just that it has bad side effects. If it was an actual possibility at this time for the federal government to start incarcerating these monsters in the states for denying constitutional rights, then yes - skip national reciprocity, go right for imprisoning human rights violators, and make it clear that requiring a permit for concealed carry is still denying RKBA.
Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening in the near future.

 

[danez71]

Lets re-read how its described:

Friday, February 25, 2011

Last week, H.R. 822, was introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.). The measure would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill also applies to Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

To read more about this legislation, please click here.

As propose, this isnt a 'leveling the paying field' issue.
It specifically says its not a federal licensing of CCPs.
It only requires each state that issues CCPs to honor other states CCPs (no requirement for states to change their CCP process or availability).

I will at least keep an open mind and not don my tin foil hat prematurely.

I do agree that it seems that it should be under "full faith and credit" clause and not the Artical 1 sec 8 commerce clause as how I understand it, the commerce clause also grants power for them to "establish uniform laws" which is not how the bill is proposed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It specifically says its not a federal licensing of CCPs

It may say that but how would that not happen to some extent? Everyone uses the example of drivers licenses but I'm pretty sure the DoT is involved in every aspect of driving now.

How would this not turn out the same?

Does DoT have any involvement at all in Drivers License issuance? Are states truly autonomous in their deciding what the minimums are to get a drivers license? What if one state required no drivers license training at all? Do you think that would fly with the other states?

I don't know the answers to those questions but they concern me. What if a state decided to issue carry permits with no training requirements at all. Do you think the other states would be happy about that? No, they would probably petition the Fed to get involved and mandate at least some "minimum requirements". And that's when it goes south.

I don't see how that could be avoided. It's not tin foil at all, it just seems that from a practical standpoint to say there would be "no change" once you involve the Fed is impossible.

 

[danez71]

What if one state required no drivers license training at all? Do you think that would fly with the other states?

I believe there are a few states that dont really have any training requirements; only testing requirements.
Here in AZ, the only thing my daughter needed for 'training' was for the parent or gaurdian sign off that my daughter drove X number of hours with a licensed adult (I think ) 21+ yrs old. (Then she passed a written and behind the wheel test.)

Her DL is recognized in all states that issue DLs due to the fed law requiring it.


I hear you Texasrifleman. Maybe tin foil hat was a bit harsh.

 

[kimbernut]

Nugent

The only acceptable national recognition would be what Ted Nugent has stated all along. "The Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit- Period!" Why is that so hard to understand?