Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: S. 2188 "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act"

  1. #1
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264

    S. 2188 "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act"

    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/03/14/n...#axzz1pKh21pFP

    "S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders."

    Has anybody else been watching this, or maybe know a little more about it? From the surface it looks like a great thing, but lately I have been leaning more towards being weary of anything that comes from D.C.
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    It's the Senate version of the bill that has already passed the House. I'm not following it particularly closely, because I don't think Reid will let it pass the Senate, and I'm fairly sure the President would veto it, even if it did pass.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    It's the Senate version of the bill that has already passed the House. I'm not following it particularly closely, because I don't think Reid will let it pass the Senate, and I'm fairly sure the President would veto it, even if it did pass.

    TFred
    I kinda figure that Obama would veto I am just curious what other people think about this. I have been sitting her talking to my wife about this and in just a short period have come to the conclusion that I don't want to see this pass. I mean the idea of it is great. Having the ability to carry in 49 states and not have to worry about it would be great. As I stated in my OP I have just become weary of the intentions of just about everything coming from D.C. My concern is that this bill, if passed, could lead to federal regulated CHP which could turn into a 'may issue'. I just makes since for it to turn into that. Well to me it does, and that is just a bad idea.
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  4. #4
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK View Post
    I kinda figure that Obama would veto I am just curious what other people think about this. I have been sitting her talking to my wife about this and in just a short period have come to the conclusion that I don't want to see this pass. I mean the idea of it is great. Having the ability to carry in 49 states and not have to worry about it would be great. As I stated in my OP I have just become weary of the intentions of just about everything coming from D.C. My concern is that this bill, if passed, could lead to federal regulated CHP which could turn into a 'may issue'. I just makes since for it to turn into that. Well to me it does, and that is just a bad idea.
    Gun Owner's of America just posted something about it. I haven't yet formed an opinion, but I don't think the right to carry should be turned into a privilege. I think the right to carry should be exactly that, the RIGHT to carry.
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK View Post
    I kinda figure that Obama would veto I am just curious what other people think about this. I have been sitting her talking to my wife about this and in just a short period have come to the conclusion that I don't want to see this pass. I mean the idea of it is great. Having the ability to carry in 49 states and not have to worry about it would be great. As I stated in my OP I have just become weary of the intentions of just about everything coming from D.C. My concern is that this bill, if passed, could lead to federal regulated CHP which could turn into a 'may issue'. I just makes since for it to turn into that. Well to me it does, and that is just a bad idea.
    The NRA is pushing it pretty hard, but then again, they also pushed our defective Castle Doctrine bills pretty hard too. It took a herculean effort to stop that train.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK View Post
    I kinda figure that Obama would veto I am just curious what other people think about this. I have been sitting her talking to my wife about this and in just a short period have come to the conclusion that I don't want to see this pass. I mean the idea of it is great. Having the ability to carry in 49 states and not have to worry about it would be great. As I stated in my OP I have just become weary of the intentions of just about everything coming from D.C. My concern is that this bill, if passed, could lead to federal regulated CHP which could turn into a 'may issue'. I just makes since for it to turn into that. Well to me it does, and that is just a bad idea.
    I also worry about much the same concerns, though I don't see how it could be possible for the feds to regulate intrastate control of concealed carry. Still I'd put nothing past those idiots.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    ....Still I'd put nothing past those idiots.
    +1
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    ...I'm not following it particularly closely, because I don't think Reid will let it pass the Senate...
    I've not yet looked at any opinion he's offered on it. But he is generally pro-gun. Have you seen anything specifically against this bill yet?

    We already know he's not for states' rights, so that won't stop him.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    ..., and I'm fairly sure the President would veto it, ...
    Just in time for the election!
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Last I saw this bill was stalled in the Senate.

    I have severe distrust of any Federal "standard" or edict from above. What the Federal government gives it can also take away and it has no right to give what should already be ours. Simply recognizing Natural Rights and the 2nd Ammendment would be all we need.

    Face it, that it is not that hard to understand the 2nd Ammendment so those that do infringe on our God given rights are not simply ignorant, they are evil. They need to be defeated not compromised with nor coddled. I hope for a day when they all are ridden out of town on a rail tarred and feathered.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Last I saw this bill was stalled in the Senate.
    This bill was only introduced 4 days go. We know they aren't fast, but... I don't think it's quite fair to say it's "stalled" already.



    TFred

    ETA: Now to be complete... the HOUSE version of this bill, H.R. 822, was referred to the Senate, and is still in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe that is what you're referring to.
    Last edited by TFred; 03-17-2012 at 09:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK View Post
    I am just curious what other people think about this.
    Do you Really want to know?

  13. #13
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    This bill was only introduced 4 days go. We know they aren't fast, but... I don't think it's quite fair to say it's "stalled" already.



    TFred

    ETA: Now to be complete... the HOUSE version of this bill, H.R. 822, was referred to the Senate, and is still in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe that is what you're referring to.
    Well since the House Bill passed back in November the next place for it to go was the Senate and it is mid-march. I have said it before that with the big ZerO at the helm it is a feel good vote that Congressman can show their constituents how they are fighting for their 2A rights without even getting it into law. Kind of like voting to recall Obamacare but knowing that the big ZerO wouldn't sign it into law ever. Some incremental good could come from it if I am wrong but I hate battling for an inch of ground that should already be in our back 40. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...s-state-lines/

    I don't have high hopes of ever regaining that ground totally since the issue of constitutionality isn't even brought up and it is usually mocked if it is.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    GOA explains the difference between H822 and S2188, as well as opining that they are responsible for getting S2188 "stalled".

    They then go on to encourage support for a better bill that is waiting in the wings while co-sponsors are collected.

    Your e-mails have turned the Senate around in the battle to protect “constitutional carry” states in federal reciprocity legislation.

    First of all, please realize the reason we’re fighting so strenuously for the Thune-Vitter language. At stake in this fight is the right of Americans to carry concealed weapons from state to state WITHOUT being registered … WITHOUT getting a permit or license … and WITHOUT being registered like sex offenders.

    The Thune-Vitter language will guarantee your right -- if you live in a “constitutional carry” state -- to freely carry firearms as protected by the Second Amendment.

    But make no mistake about it: The ONLY reason for the Begich-Manchin-Baucus bill -– sponsored by three anti-gun Democrats –- is to keep the Senate gavel in Harry Reid’s hands.

    S. 2188 would do this by allowing anti-gun Democrats to pretend to care about the Second Amendment, while pushing legislation which would deter additional states from passing “constitutional carry” legislation.

    Think about it: Both Begich and Manchin HAVE YET TO CAST A PRO-GUN VOTE during this Congress!

    Manchin has NEVER cast a pro-gun vote while he’s been in the Senate. And Begich has cast anti-gun votes 82% of the time since joining the Senate in 2009. Plus, he is a former member of the anti-gun Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is headed by the extremist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    The other Democrat on S. 2188, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, has a D- rating with GOA.

    So why would we trust these anti-gun Senators to do the right thing on gun legislation? The answer is: “We shouldn’t!”

    S. 2188 is just an attempt to get cover for their abysmal Second Amendment voting records. Consider this:

    * They didn’t vote our way when we urged them to vote against Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    * They didn’t vote with us when we pleaded with them to oppose the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation, which enables the BATFE and FBI to troll through the health care database for gun owners who would be barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights because of their medical information. Nor did they vote our way when we asked them to support a repeal of this obnoxious legislation last year.

    * And remember the DISCLOSE Act from a couple of years ago? Begich and Baucus voted to place severe and unconstitutional limits on GOA’s ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the weeks leading up to an election. (Manchin wasn’t in the Senate yet.)

    * They also opposed a repeal of the Veterans Disarmament Act -- legislation that has legalized a practice (begun by Bill Clinton) which has disarmed more than 150,000 military veterans for ailments like PTSD.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. These anti-gun, compromising Senators have stabbed us in the back repeatedly. Although now that they’ve turned off a good part of their electorate, they are trying to appear pro-gun.

    But they can’t even claim they’re engaged in compromise to help this legislation pass muster, because the much stronger Thune language ALREADY RECEIVED AN OVERWHELMING VOTE MARGIN in 2009!!!

    And because of the pro-gun gains made in the 2010 elections, there should be more than 62 Senators who will support the Thune language -- which means we can easily overcome a filibuster.

    This just seems like a bald-faced attempt to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in power. And let’s face it, when Reid’s running the Senate, our liberties are in danger. (Consider just some of the anti-gun votes listed above that Senator Reid has pushed.)

    One more thing: The Begich-Manchin bill will discourage states from enacting “constitutional carry” legislation.

    After all, if activists in states considering “constitutional carry” believe they will have to get a license anyway –- because of this enormous “carrot” the anti-gun Democrats are holding out for them -– what incentive do they have to walk the halls of the state capitol, to call their legislators and testify in favor of “constitutional carry.”

    The answer is: “None.”

    As we write this, the Thune-Vitter bill already has 17 sponsors and cosponsors. The anti-gun Begich-Manchin bill is stuck at three anti-gun Democrats.

    But we need to keep the pressure on.


    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10

    Maybe We Should Just Give Up Now!

    The Feds are already involved! The SCOTUS has held that concealed carry is a privilege and the Federal Government has declared that some people have, through due process, been disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment.
    The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

    And here is the current situation with the States! Currently there are ten (10) states that do not recognize concealed weapons carry permits issued by any other states in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (CA, CT, HI, IL MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, & RI) Of these, one (IL) does not have any provisions for issuing concealed weapons carry permits and does not allow concealed weapons carry.

    Conversely, there are eleven (11) states that honor all other states' concealed weapons carry permits in compliance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (AK, AZ, IA, ID, IN, MI, MO, OK, SD, TN, & UT). One state (VT) allows concealed weapons carry without a permit and therefore does not issue concealed weapons carry permits.

    The remaining twenty-eight (28) states recognize some other states' concealed weapons carry permits but do not recognize other states' concealed weapons carry permits, again in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. These remaining 28 states are also not consistent with each other thus creating a mind-numbing and constantly changing environment for travelers with valid state issued permits for concealed weapons carry.

    In some states, you can not even possess a handgun without a permit and permits are only issued to residents with a “demonstrated need”; effectively violating residents' U.S. Constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights .

    We should have the right to protect ourselves in any state while traveling or on vacation. All but one state have passed concealed carry laws because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves their home. However, as listed earlier, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and creates great confusion and potential safety and legal problems for the traveler.

    But let's not do anything because maybe sometime somebody may make some changes to some laws or Bill[s] that may not be good for the furtherance of our 2nd Amendment rights. We should instead work very hard to make sure that there are absolutely no changes to any gun laws or new gun laws, even if they are perceived as good, while we continue to complain about the current gun laws??????

    And then there is the GOA! The Gun Owners of America want us to tell our Senators to not support S. 2188 because Senators Thune and Vitter plan to submit a Bill sometime that may support the GOA's position on concealed carry. However, they are not telling us what that Bill says or when that Bill can be expected to be introduced. Senator Thune has been saying he is going to introduce a Bill for months but, as yet, hasn't. A Bill that GOA supported, H.R. 2900, was introduced in the House on 09/23/2011 and was referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security where it sits with 20 co-sponsors while H.R. 822 was voted out of that subcommittee and passed in the House by a vote of 272 Ayes vs. 154 Nays. We need something now; not a would'a - could'a - should'a Bill sometime (if ever) in the future. The unknown Thune-Vitter Bill hasn't even been introduced in the Senate and, if it's a companion Bill to H.R. 2900, has not even been voted on in the House Subcommittee. Otherwise, the Thune-Vitter Bill doesn't exist anywhere. If GAO wants us to support a Bill then they need to give us details so that we can make an informed decision. Until then, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. The net result of supporting multiple Bills will be that we get nothing!

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    297
    Gun Owners of America
    Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors
    *
    Today, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to recognize national reciprocity for gun owners who can legally carry concealed firearms in the state where they reside.
    *
    The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, was introduced with a huge show of support. Twenty-nine Senators sponsored or cosponsored the bill, and this is, in large part, thanks to you! Because of all your efforts over the last week, the following Senators signed on in support of the legislation:
    *
    Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Lugar (IN), McConnell (KY), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Risch (ID), Rubio (FL), Sessions (AL), Thune (SD), Toomey (PA) Vitter (LA) and Wicker (MS).
    This bill, the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, treats concealed carry as a RIGHT belonging to the people – not a privilege granted by the government.
    *
    “Rather than establish a national standard, our bill will ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to carry concealed firearms while at the same time respecting the laws of the respective states they visit,” said Sen. Thune.
    *
    The Thune-Vitter bill provides national recognition for concealed carry permit holders (who have obtained one from their home states), but it also recognizes the right to carry for residents of Constitutional Carry states (where no permit is required).
    *
    This is a huge win for gun owners! Constitutional Carry is currently the law in five states, and more than a dozen states have legislation to move in that direction.
    *
    A competing bill, S. 2188, offers reciprocity ONLY for permit holders -- and thus it would prevent many gun owners, who can legally carry in their home states, from carrying firearms when they travel out-of-state. This compromise bill, sponsored by anti-gun Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV) and Max Baucus (MT), would deal a severe blow to the momentum we have in passing Constitutional Carry at the state level.
    *
    It is crucial that Senators support the Constitutional Carry-friendly bill, and to oppose any efforts to weaken the Thune-Vitter legislation.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Inquisitor, I don't think the point is "lets not do anything". The point is let's not do the WRONG thing.

    Please, if you can, why would 2 senators who are OBVIOUSLY anti gun sponsor a "Right to Carry" bill? Can you say Ulterior motive?

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    Gun Owners of America
    Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors
    *
    Today, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to recognize national reciprocity for gun owners who can legally carry concealed firearms in the state where they reside.
    *
    The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, was introduced with a huge show of support. Twenty-nine Senators sponsored or cosponsored the bill, and this is, in large part, thanks to you! Because of all your efforts over the last week, the following Senators signed on in support of the legislation:
    Here's the link to this information.

    Of course, our two "self-proclaimed pro-gun" excuses for Senators, Webb and Warner, are not on the list of co-sponsors.

    TFred

  19. #19
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here's the link to this information.

    Of course, our two "self-proclaimed pro-gun" sad-excuses for Senators, Webb and Warner, are not on the list of co-sponsors.

    TFred
    Fixed it for you. ;-) Webb and Warner have been a disappointment in just about everything!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Inquisitor, I don't think the point is "lets not do anything". The point is let's not do the WRONG thing.
    Actually my point is DO SOMETHING! The smallest single accomplishment is far better than all the grandest intentions.
    NOW we have a horse race!
    In the House we have:
    H.R. 822
    H.R. 2900
    H.R. 3543
    And in the Senate we have:
    H.R. 822
    S. 2188
    S. 2213
    The winner has to: pass the House, pass the Senate, go through joint Conference, be approved by both houses, be signed by the President.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •