The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845

[Lone_Gunman]

I vote no for giving the federal government any more power over any issue dealing with guns, even if on the surface it initially appears to be a good idea.

I do not feel this is a pro gun law. It assumes that the RKBA should be subject to legislation controlling its exercise.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Lone Gunman is right. This bill assumes the false premise that the feds should have a say in this in the first place.

 

[metallic]

I'm with the "against" crowd (just like I was the last time this topic came up). Once the feds get involved, we'll have: 1) fingerprinting for the permit, 2) mandatory conceal (no oc), 3) standardized course requirements for the permit, 4) no carry where alcohol is served, 5) no carry in churches, 6) no carry in large venues, 6) bigger fee for the permit, 7) a whole new (massive) branch of the BATFE, 8) gun "safe function" check (like Michigan used to have), 8) only carry guns listed on your permit, 9) make up a silly rule the feds would dream up and insert it here.

I thought most states already required you to submit fingerprints with your CHP permit. Either way, I agree. The Fed would try to screw us and we would end up with an even stronger federal government and even weaker state governments. The balance of power needs to shift back to that of a republic.

 

[rl2669]

I have to agree with those who are against this proposal.

If there is a Federal level CCW reciprocity agreement, then at Federal level they'll have to harmonize all those pesky differences that the states have today about where its OK to carry (e.g. restaurants that serve alcohol, stadiums, churches), training requirements, license fees, etc.

I think we can all guess which way they'll come down on these restrictions (hint - it won't be "Vermont carry for all"). At the end of the day all you'll be left with is the ability to carry your firearm loaded in your car in each state.

This screams trojan horse.

 

[pbearperry]

The cop carry bill is a Federal Bill and so far so good.Why wouldn't the same bill for everyone else be any different?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I was opposed to the cop carry bill also. So far so good? What does that mean?

 

[TexasRifleman]

I think we can all guess which way they'll come down on these restrictions (hint - it won't be "Vermont carry for all"). At the end of the day all you'll be left with is the ability to carry your firearm loaded in your car in each state.

That's the problem, and if you think the DOJ will treat us the same way they treat LEO's well...... I got a bridge to sell.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I believe the goal of these "universal reciprocity" bills is to allow the several states to keep the underlying unconstitutional laws in place. These are the underlying laws that prohibit carrying a gun in the first place. Concealed carry laws are nothing more than exceptions to these underlying laws.

Placate the gun-carrying populace(those of us with CCW permits/licenses) with this kind of "universal reciprocity", and you silence millions of voices fighting to unfetter the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

HR218 - the police officer interstate concealed carry bill - silenced most of the thousands of police officers who were fighting along side us to be able to carry country wide. The divide and conquer, placate-a-segment-of-the-populace tactic was successful. Don't allow them another victory and make it harder to unfetter our rights.

Woody

 

[pbearperry]

So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.
I hate to tell ya guys,but I think you are over thinking this bill.I grew up in the 60's and one of the pet phrases I remember is"Paranoia will destroy ya".

 

[TOTC]

I believe this would weaken many states asserting their rights under the 10th amendment. I for one am no fan of federal control over a CCW and I will be getting a dog in this fight.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Did anyone read the text?

1) The bill doesn't allow you to carry in all 50 states.
2) The bill doesn't require ANY state to allow conceal carry
3) There is no "standardizing of anything" in the bill.

The ONLY thing the bill says is IF (meaning state don't have to issue CCW) a state issues CCW then need to honor CCW issued by other states. Just like we do with marriage licenses, and pilot licenses, and driver's licenses.

IF a state (like IL) doesn't want CCW then fine. They don't have to issue permits and neither residents nor people traveling can carry.
If a state (like 48 states) wants CCW then they must accept CCW from other states.

I am just wondering if anyone actually read the bill?
Step 1) Read the bill
Step 2) Decide if bill is good idea.

Seems like everyone jumped to #2 and assumed a lot of stuff.

A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of 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 `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

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

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) 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 pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

It actually is an incredibly simple bill. A good bill IMHO. One with no federal oversight or "standardization"

I have a CCW from VA. The feds don't change anything about how to get a CCW from VA. That is up to the state of VA.
I travel to NC. The ONLY thing the bill does is require NC to accept by CCW as if it was from NC (because NC provides CCW). Period.

The "standards" i.e. where, when, how I can carry is up to...... <drum roll> NC.
Just as it is now except we have uniform reciprocity like we do with every other license.
It will replace the patchwork of reciprocity agreements which are constantly shifting. Sometimes states fail to resign reciprocity agreements and technically residents traveling to other states are committing felonies until the agreements get resigned. Often resources for verifying current reciprocity are out of date. It creates a burden on citzens who travel where one shouldn't exist.

There would be one reciprocity map.
If you have a CCW from any one of the 48 non red states then you can carry in all 48 non red states. The map would only need to be updated if/when a state goes from no CCW to issuing CCW or vice versa.



What it will really shake up is the 9 "may issue" states. They can restrict CCW permits to the rich, the connected, and the powerful but can't restrict neighboring states citizens who travel into their state. Likely we will see the "may issue" states finally get off the pot or ****. They will likely move to either no issue or shall issue.

 

[41022collector]

Regardless of how simple the bill is, if you think in your right mind that the feds will not eventually hand down a laundry list of HOW TO ISSUE a CCW according to the Feds, you are dreaming.

I have a CCW from Ohio.

Yes I read the bill, I do not like feds getting into my biz anymore than they have already. By them controlling recip, they will also eventually control what you can carry and how. It is bad enough that the state level even has a say so, but to allow the feds to have the access to the states on firearms control, even what seems like a great bill up front. Just allow the left of center dems and their follwers the chance to dig their nails into who, what, when, where and how... we will all be carrying single shot, orange, pump air pistols with frangible BB's.... they will do this as they do with all other interstate federal laws, they will refuse funding for something or another until the individual states bend to their demands.

The 10th Amendment only protects us if we have the people in State offices willing to use it. So far Montana and Tex are getting the ball rolling.

It cracks me up that in Ohio, you can with a CCW, carry just about anything legal for you to own, just short of a nuke if you are walking. But.... in a car, it is ONE loaded piece within plain sight w/o a search and must have something orange on the piece, visable from 270 degrees on it's side. I glue orange polymer strips on the bottom on the mags on my Para Warthog. Otherwise I use orange duct tape1/4" strip around the barrel or down each side of a slide. PLUS if you are stopped, you must with in an arbbitrary time, announce you are a CCW holder and that you have a firearm in the car. Otherwise, they can and have arrested people for NOT saying so within the first 5 seconds of window contact. I now keep a damn orange printer bumper sticker in my rear right window as well as a see through orange window sticker on the inside of the drivers side window announcing I am carrying and have a CCW.

So yes I read the bill, I do not want it.....I do not care how safe you think it is worded. :banghead:

regards
Mike

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.

Thats good for you, but bad for the rest of us who are now 2nd class citizens.

 

[bensdad]

So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.
I hate to tell ya guys,but I think you are over thinking this bill.I grew up in the 60's and one of the pet phrases I remember is"Paranoia will destroy ya".

It created a class system. Some of us aren't real fond of that. It was the camel's nose under the tent. 845 is the rest of its head. For those who recognize this fact, good on ya. For those who don't, keep trying. We're here to help.

 

[Birdmang]

Lets get the big #2 incorporated first, its on its way.

 

[zoom6zoom]

41022 - the plain sight provision for carry in a vehicle has been removed from the law. Also no mention of orange stuff that will make it look like a toy.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

 

[thesolidus]

So, living in California I'd still have to get a CCW here first right?
Or should I apply for a CCW in Utah (and the 16 state compact) and hope that it grandfathers me in?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Doesn't matter how "simple" this bill is, it is still the federal government saying it's OK for the states to govern the keeping and bearing of arms contrary to the Constitution at the Second Added Article to the Constitution(commonly called the Second Amendment).

`(1) 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 pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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.

This is the worst part:

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

That is the open door Congress or maybe even some bureaucracy needs to add to this legislation some time in the future to impose conditions, limits and prohibitions.

There is nothing to be gained for We the People from this bill or any bill like it. It looks like a nice carrot dangling out there, but when you bite into it, all you'll taste is crap and the orange paint used to disguise it.

Woody

 

[ArmedBear]

Constitution Cowboy, you have shown that you are consistently opposed to any Federal legislation that would restrict states' ability to limit the rights of their citizens.

That is the open door Congress or maybe even some bureaucracy needs to add to this legislation some time in the future to impose conditions, limits and prohibitions.

How?

You're saying that Oregon having to recognize my Idaho permit is a bad thing?

Oregon recognizes no other states' permits right now.

What, exactly, could make that worse?

Do you have a problem with states recognizing drivers' licenses from other states?

Why are you so attached to the power of each state to restrict the rights of Ameican citizens? What, exactly, is the reason for that? (I seem to recall only seeing similar posts from you in any thread regarding a Federal bill that supports individual rights across state lines.)

Have you worked to repeal the 14th Amendment? If not, why not? Clearly, you oppose it.

To everyone who thinks this bill is bad: you may be right. However, I don't think it's productive to automatically oppose any bill that does not read, "Everyone on American soil shall be allowed to carry any weapon, openly or concealed, in any place, at any time, under any circumstances or conditions."

Lone Gunman, for example, writes as his reason for opposition: "It assumes that the RKBA should be subject to legislation controlling its exercise."

Well, duh.

That's true about every right we have, though.

In the REAL WORLD, having the 2nd Amendment elevated to the level of every other right in the Consitution, one step at a time, is probably the only way we'll get any improvement. IMO, it IS the only way.

The "all or nothing" mentality is a great way to feel self-satisfied, but it accomplishes nothing in the political world. It's the reason I quit renewing my Libertarian Party membership.

The "wars are won by winning battles and advancing" philosophy is why, for all its faults, real and imagined, I support the NRA.

Incremental change works. It's how our system works, like it or not.

 

[Frog48]

What it will really shake up is the 9 "may issue" states. They can restrict CCW permits to the rich, the connected, and the powerful but can't restrict neighboring states citizens who travel into their state.

If nationwide reciprocity became law, "May-Issue" states could effectively become irrelevant. Residents of Cali/Mass/NY/Iowa/etc could easily obtain non-resident licenses from another state (Florida and Utah seem to be popular), and be good-to-go.

 

[ArmedBear]

Smart shall-issue states might see this as a revenue source.

California won't become a "no-issue" state, for example. Do they really want to make it illegal for hollywood celebrities and big political donors to get CCW permits? I don't think they do.

 

[ArmedBear]

Thats good for you, but bad for the rest of us who are now 2nd class citizens.

So move. Stop paying taxes to support government that you opposem, and that corruption will keep in place. Do your part to let Illinois die on the vine.

 

[DammitBoy]

States issue driver's licenses. Every state honors every other states DL's.

How is the federal government involved?

What would be different about CCW's?

 

[ArmedBear]

How is the federal government involved?

I don't believe there's a specific Federal statute addressing it.

However, Federal courts have found that states' failure to recognize drivers' licenses of other states is a violation of the Constitution, as an unlawful restriction of interstate commerce.

Therefore, law or no law, it is the Federal government (the Judicial Branch) that has forced states to reciprocate driving priveleges.

Once upon a time, some states tried to require their own drivers' licenses for those who were just passing through in their vehicles.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW as a pragmatist, I see good reason for this law.

I live somewhat close to the Third World (Eastern Oregon). Our local Interstate can land you there, on the way to other places in Idaho.

Oregon doesn't recognize Idaho permits, and is known for being EXTREMELY restrictive in their issuing out-of-state permits. So, I'm driving along, on the way to Northern Idaho, and I end up in Oregon for a little bit. If I have my gun in my pocket, I'm a criminal, even though I'm traveling between two points in Idaho.

This shouldn't be.