That bill is toxic!
The Thune-Vitter bill is the way to go.
Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822, which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.
Link to Bill S.2188: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2188/show
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!
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.
Link to Bill S.2213: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2213/show
S. 2213 has three main differences from H.R. 822 and S. 2188:
1. allows people from constitutional carry states to carry in other states without a license;
2. does not have requirements for GAO studies of CCW laws and LEO ability to verify out-of-state licenses, and;
3. specifies that carry in another state is subject to the least restrictive license in that state.
Last edited by seminoles1999; 03-23-2012 at 08:13 PM.
That bill is toxic!
The Thune-Vitter bill is the way to go.
What's the differences between the two that make one "toxic" and one acceptable.
This question is not posed as an attack, it is asked in the spirit of information and learning something about both of them.
I have seen several references to both bills from various sources and I don't see where the problem is coming up.
AD (open carry advocate)
NRA Life - AMA Life - ABATE Life
Viet-Nam Helicopters Pilots Assn - Life
IDPA and USPSA carry gun shooter - Glock Armorer
NRA Certified Instructor
Thune-Vitter simply calls for reciprocity across the board, even for Constitutional Carry states, and contains no provisions that would lead to a National Standard...much cleaner bill.
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? -Bastiat
I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.
As a Political Science student in college, I am writing a research intensive term paper concerning H.R. 822 and it's Senate equivalent. I will post the first ten pages on this forum. Please do not distribute.
[Type the company name]
H.R.822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act 0f 2011
[Type the document subtitle]
H.R. 822, if made into law, would amend Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code to allow persons carrying a valid U.S. photo ID and concealed carry permit to carry their concealed firearms in any state that has a concealed carry permitting system. This bill only increases the amount of state permit holders that are recognized nationally; H.R. 822 does not interfere with State’s rights to regulate the manners in which concealed firearms are legally possessed. This bill would force 49 states to accept all other state issued concealed carry permits, voiding current state laws that may prohibit such actions.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) has been pushing for what he considers, “common sense permit laws” for the last 10 years, as he sees the current laws as too complex for ordinary citizens to follow. These laws, according to Stearns, are forcing many potential concealed carriers to leave their firearms at home during interstate travel due to fears of criminal prosecution. The purpose of this bill is to effectively enforce the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense throughout the country. Rep. Stearns argues that, “The right to defend yourself and your loved ones from criminals is fundamental, and it should not be extinguished when you cross a state border... H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed carry permits in much the same way drivers’ licenses are recognized.” This bill would also uphold the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment by ignoring state laws and boundaries that infringe on this application of the 2nd Amendment, a right that Rep. Stearns and H.R. 822’s 245 Co-Sponsors believe was upheld in two Supreme Court cases: D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
In the 2008 D.C. vs. Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, including handguns, in federal enclaves (such as the home) for traditionally lawful purposes (including self-defense) is protected by the 2nd Amendment. This ruling forced changes to D.C. laws that previously prohibited handguns and required shotguns and rifles within the home to be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. McDonald vs. Chicago clarified whether or not D.C. vs. Heller applies to state laws by requiring state laws to follow the court’s rulings due to the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, as the rights upheld were not privileges endowed by the states, but rather inalienable rights of every national citizen. Whether or not these two bills directly refer to the constitutionality of concealed carry, however, is heavily disputed between the two major political parties.
In order to understand the implications of this bill, one must know the basic legal differences between states and how carry permits are issued. The four major categories of right-to-carry states are known as unrestricted, shall-issue, may-issue, and no-issue (see Figure 1.1). In unrestricted states, carrying without a permit is legal, although permits are still available for citizens if they wish to carry in other states that accept their state’s permit. Shall-issue states are states that will always issue a carry permit to a licensee if he or she passes all the requirements of that state. May-issue states leave the decision on whether or not an individual receives a carry permit in the hands of local/state law enforcement, regardless of the potential licensees passing all of the application requirements. No-issue states simply do not allow open or concealed carry by private citizens. As of July 8th, 2011 four states are unrestricted, 37 states are shall-issue, eight are may-issue, and one state does now allow either concealed or open carry.
The pivotal difference between shall-issue and may-issue states is that shall-issue states regard the 2nd Amendment as adequate reason to obtain a permit, whereas may-issue states usually require other qualifications, such as being a “good moral character” in California, or being in fear of one’s life to receive a permit. Most gun supporters believe that the 2nd Amendment is self-explanatory, making moot qualifications concerning ones character or fear of death unconstitutional. This view is supported by the recent court case Woollard v. Sheridan, which ruled the Maryland May-Issue System, which requires a “good and substantial reason” to receive a permit, to be unconstitutional. The rulings of the court conflict with public opinion in may-issue states, as most current may-issue states are predominantly Democrat, Liberal, and anti-gun due to party alignment. Democrats and anti-gun lobbyists favor may-issue systems over shall-issue systems because may-issue states restrict the amount of handguns legally carried in public, effectively banning such legal practices. In application of the law, may-issue states have the ability to become no-issue states, depending on whether or not local law enforcement officials feel the need to accept applications.
The largest impact this bill will have is the elimination of truly may-issue states and the increase in handguns legally concealed within these states. Although this bill would not affect how permits are issued, visiting nonresidents would be allowed to carry in restrictive may-issue states with easier to obtain shall-issue permits. For example, a California resident who is unable to receive a California permit due to lack of “good moral character”, but is otherwise eligible for the typical shall-issue permit, can drive east and apply for an Arizona carry permit (an unrestricted shall-issue state). When accepted, the licensee could carry in nearly all states, including seven of the eight may-issue states (except California, because he or she is a resident), excluding Illinois (no-issue state). This essentially strips the rights of may-issue liberal states to regulate the number of legal firearms carried in their state by removing their ability to prohibit legal firearm possession in their state by nonresidents.
H.R. 822 would also remove rights of moderate gun-law states from determining what level of safety training is required to carry in their respective states, as training requirements vary from state to state. If just one state that issues permits doesn’t particularly care if potential licensees have ever handled a handgun or if those who own/have fired handguns are accurate shooters, such lack of requirements essentially become the permit requirement for the nation. Florida, a shall-issue state, will accept U.S. citizens who fail another state’s permit application because they’re too inaccurate or don’t want to fire handguns because Florida accepts multiple “safety courses” as proof of proficiency with handguns. Whether its firing a single inaccurate shot on a gun show firing line, enrolling in an NRA approved rifle safety class that may or may not include handguns, or taking a 16 hour Hunter’s Safety Course that does not require live firearms whatsoever, all are sufficient for passing the safety section of the Florida permit process. Anti-gun lobbyists from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argue that making a national permit system creates a “race to the bottom”, where the state with the loosest permit laws becomes the national benchmark on eligibility requirements to carry in 98% of states.
Media attention for this bill grew after two separate individuals were arrested for charges that would not have existed if H.R. 822 was national law. According to the Huffington Post, Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit holder Meredith Graves was arrested for weapons possession after a guard reported her to police after she attempting to check in her firearm during her visit to the 9/11 memorial. “She'd noticed a sign that said "No guns allowed," and asked a guard where she could check the loaded .32 caliber pistol she'd been carrying in her purse.” Former Marine and Indiana Carry Permit holder Ryan Jerome faces criminal charges after attempting to check in his firearm at the Empire State Building. This Bill would solve unfortunate incidents of legal action against citizens with law-abiding intentions who violate state reciprocity laws due to statute ignorance.
“Based on the costs of similar GAO activities, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing H.R. 822 would have no significant cost to the federal government… enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.” Precise financial effects of this bill on a national level are nearly impossible to calculate due to varying levels of government subsidizing, as the amount resident state permit systems would be expected to remain the same, and nonresident permit holders would decrease (due to lack of need). State budgets would be affected with either a marginal gain or loss in capital, depending on the degree in which such permitting programs are subsidized. The cost and longevity of permits range from $10 to $140 and generally five to seven years, respectively. H.R. 822 would make obtaining multiple permits obsolete, as any one permit would be accepted in every state that accepts carry permits. The CBO cost estimation combining law enforcement training costs and lost revenue from nonresident permits, “Would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($71 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).”
Nationwide polls conducted by multiple news sources and compiled by two independent polling institutions, Gallup, Inc. and Polling Report, Inc., differ in their results on 2nd Amendment public opinion. Public opinion concerning concealed carry and gun rights is a highly contested issue, with roughly 52% of voters approving of generally stricter gun laws in one poll (see Figure 1.2). Gallup’s ongoing poll (see Figure 1.3), asking voters whether they want more strict or less strict/unchanged laws on purchasing firearms, paints the general public as both slightly against stricter gun bans and progressively pro-gun rights for individuals than in past years, conflicting with Figure 1.2’s results. Figure 1.4 supports the notion that Americans approve of handgun ownership for private citizens. In 2007, only 29% of voters believed only law enforcement and authorized personnel should be allowed access to handguns, down from 38% in 1999. On the contrary, Figure 1.5 shows evenly split support for bans, with 48% of voters wanting to ban modernized handguns, whereas 50% of voters do not. Figure 1.6 narrows in on public opinion directly concerning concealed carry, the most prevalent public opinion concerning H.R. 822, with 60% of voters believing that local/state authorities should not have the authority to ban concealed handguns.
If anything is clear about gun laws and public opinion, it is that the issue of gun control heavily follows party association. When asked what is more important, “…to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership…”, 70% of Republicans see the right to own guns as more important, as opposed to 30% of Democrats (see Figure 1.7). The opposite view in regards to party lines also holds true, with 67% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans believing control of gun ownership is more important. Because of the ideological differences between the average Republican and Democrat voter, 95% of Republican representatives supported this bill. Republicans support this bill because it accurately reflects their constituent needs, follows party ideology, and increases their support as individual candidates from single issue voters in Republican districts. The same can be said about the Democrat party, although to a slightly less degree, with 77% of the representatives voting against H.R. 822.
Proposed House amendments to H.R. 822 followed party ideology in every instance. All eight amendments proposed by democrats either excluded certain states or made H.R. 822 completely ineffective by requiring further support from a myriad of state authorities (on a state by state basis) to become law. The only Republican sponsored amendments, Amendment 1 and Amendment 10, were generally neutral concerning gun rights supporters. Amendment 1 attempted to reinforce state rights that already have reciprocity laws, but was voted down because it added no real substance to the bill. Amendment 10 simply required a GAO study on the ability of law enforcement agencies to verify out-of-state permits, something that most house members saw as common sense policy reform.
The first logical approach to passing H.R. 822 is to continue supporting national reciprocity (who can carry) while blocking amendments that infringe on other state firearm statutes (in what manner they can be carried). Although no such amendments passed in the house, the sheer fear of Democrat sponsored amendments that attempt to nationalize gun restrictions has caused The National Association for Gun Rights, a pro-gun organization, to oppose H.R. 822. While the National Rifle Association has taken a more logistical stance on 2nd Amendment rights by supporting this bill to increase the amount of potential legal conceal carrying, H.R. 822 goes against the National Associations for Gun Rights’ ideology of nationwide “Constitutional Carry” (carrying firearms openly or concealed without a permit), and ultimately believes the risk of anti-gun amendments and the lessening of state’s rights to loosen gun restrictions in the Democrat controlled Senate greatly outweighs the potential rewards of H.R. 822 for gun owners, calling H.R. 822, “the Trojan Horse gun control bill.”
To be approved by the majority in the Democrat controlled Senate, Republicans will need to allow compromise concerning national permit registration. According to the Brady Campaign website FAQ, National registration of handguns/permit holders has been supported by the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence for decades, and 69% of police chiefs support legislation that requires registration of all handguns owned by private citizens. The only way to receive overwhelming Senate support for H.R. 822 is by allowing an amendment to pass that creates a nation-wide FBI carry permit database that allows any law enforcement officer to instantly determine whether or not an individual possesses/has ever possessed a valid carry permit, whether or not an individual permit is valid, and if there are any misdemeanor or felony arrests on an individual’s record, regardless of which state they were committed in.
Compromise on this section of gun rights would be seen by Democrats as a reasonable trade-off by increasing public safety in exchange for more gun rights. Although the NRA and other gun rights groups may become somewhat disgruntled at the thought of a national registration system, 61% of gun owners support the registration of handguns, according to the very same Brady Campaign FAQ. If H.R. 822 reserves state rights on manner of carry, while streamlining a national permit identification system that benefits law enforcement and the general public, this bill would be more likely to pass in the Senate, returning to the house for further amendments, passing again in the House, and signed into law by the President.
The cites, references, and figures can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...GIs7_dIn0/edit
PLEASE post constructive support and criticism...this is a work in progress.
Last edited by Jake8x7; 03-26-2012 at 06:21 PM.
Senate Introduces "Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Act"
George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, is the NRA's vision of America. The proposed George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Acts (S. 2213 and S. 2188), would force virtually every state to allow Zimmerman, and dangerous people like him, to legally carry loaded and hidden handguns in our communities. Imagine that: "George Zimmermans" walking your streets. Armed and dangerous. That's the gun lobby's vision for America. But it's not ours.
If a state has strong laws that would prevent someone like Zimmerman — who had an arrest record and a violent past — from getting a concealed carry permit, tough luck.
These new bills would force states with strong gun laws like New York — where Zimmerman never could have gotten a permit — to honor the concealed carry permits of states with abhorrently low standards, such as Florida.
We stand with the American people in flatly rejecting the NRA's vision and replacing it with our own vision of an America where young people can go out to buy a pack of Skittles and can of tea in safety.
Last edited by seminoles1999; 03-30-2012 at 01:04 AM.
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
[Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.
[Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]