• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

suntzu wrote:
This is a good bill on the surface...what I don't like is the pre emption of individual state rights by the federal government.

It would seem to me that if the states could come together and put away their petty bickering and quit listening to the anti gunners about how dangerous it would be to allow us lowly serfs to carry guns.....when in reality I feel safer around a citizen who has a gun than I do around an agent of the government who has one....

I agree--the federal government has no business dictating how and in what manner a state may recognize a permit...BUT on the other hand--it is obvious that the states themselves are not going to move forward on any type of state to state reciprocity..because the disparities in recognition are huge....What is recognized in Tennessee and Virginia for example may not be recognized in Hawaii, California, Illinois or the USVI...and while California may recognize Texas permits--there is no legal way for a Californian to carry their gun openly or concealed all the way to Texas because the states in between won't recognize a Ca. permit....what is recognized in Virginia and in Tennessee should be just as recognized in California or Illinois...and vice versa.

what I worry about is :the federal government giveth and the federal government can taketh away that which it giveth.....when our right to carry a gun is not based on the whims of the feds, but on the Constitution.
^^ What he said. I think it sounds good, but in reality is nothing more than the fed trying to further strip the states of their rights.
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

I agree. Big brother has no place telleng the states what the can and cannot do. What we need is states to follow the example of Utah. We don't discriminate here, any permit is valid! :celebrate


U.C.A. 76-10-523. Persons exempt from weapons laws.
(1) This part and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, do not apply to any of the following:
(a) a United States marshal;
(b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
(c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
(e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
(f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as merchandise; or
(g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is:
(i) unloaded; and
(ii) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501.
(2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1)(a), (1)(b),(concealed carry)and Section 76-10-505 (loaded carry) do not apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
(a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704; or
(b) by another state or county.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: many portions of the Bill of Rights have been rules to be incorporated into the 14th amendment, which essentially means that they apply to all subordinate governments, as well as the federal government.

Either all those rulings regarding incorporation are unconstitutional (which is certainly possible), or it could be interpreted that the 10th amendment is intended to stop the federal government from imposing restirctions on rights that aren't allowed by the constitution, but is free to over-ride subordinate government laws that restrict rights.

Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:
I assume we can find a way t check the pro or anti gun votes of the co-sponsors of this bill ?
Unfortunately, those rated as "pro gun" for supporting this bill, will actually be "anti-Constitution".

Too many "pro-2nd" people are willing to throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus if they get their way.

I'm pro-2nd, but I'm also pro-The-Rest-of-the-Constitution.

National reciprocity is usually compared to driver's licensing, but states don't recognize each other's DLs because the feds say they must: they recognize each other's DLs by way of mutual agreement, exactly the way concealed carry reciprocity has been spreading.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:
There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: many portions of the Bill of Rights have been rules to be incorporated into the 14th amendment, which essentially means that they apply to all subordinate governments, as well as the federal government.

Either all those rulings regarding incorporation are unconstitutional (which is certainly possible), or it could be interpreted that the 10th amendment is intended to stop the federal government from imposing restirctions on rights that aren't allowed by the constitution, but is free to over-ride subordinate government laws that restrict rights.

Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

All the psuedo-constitutional handwringing here is exactly the reason bills like this get stalled - not enough support from the community requesting the bill in the first place.

In my world view, government(s) and entities of them have authorities, not rights. Citizens have rights. One of the responsibilities that comes with rights guaranteed by the bill of rights isdefending it politically from legislative incursion. As we all know, previous generations were asleep at the switch and we're paying the price for it. The only way to roll back the restrictions on us heaped upon us from previous generations is for us to unify.

Remember that post Lopez, Raich and Stewart citing Raich held that if the presence intrastate affected commerce outside the state then the commerce was interstate and thus subject to regulation by Congress. Not saying I agree, just thtat's what it is. Personally, I think we can resolve the constitutional handwringing another day, but today we might want to consider moving national reciprocity forwardto the last, recalcitrant states.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mr. Y wrote:
Remember that post Lopez, Raich and Stewart citing Raich held that if the presence intrastate affected commerce outside the state then the commerce was interstate and thus subject to regulation by Congress. Not saying I agree, just thtat's what it is. Personally, I think we can resolve the constitutional handwringing another day, but today we might want to consider moving national reciprocity forwardto the last, recalcitrant states.
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.
 

SteveInAshand

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
imported post

That is not the basis of my question.

I just want to know if there is an accessible database that I can look up to see how each congress person has voted on key 2nd bill's up or down.

Again does anyone know ?
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

Anyone notice that it only allows a CC from State A to CC in State B if State B issues permits / licenses to CC?

That would mean that since VT doesn't issue permits, there is no reciprocity. Granted, anyone can OC or CC but shouldn't the legislation make allowances for this as well?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Mike wrote:
If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning.  That's how the NICS improvement act works.
Too much of this occurs. We should oppose at every turn, not ask for more.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: many portions of the Bill of Rights have been rules to be incorporated into the 14th amendment, which essentially means that they apply to all subordinate governments, as well as the federal government.

Either all those rulings regarding incorporation are unconstitutional (which is certainly possible), or it could be interpreted that the 10th amendment is intended to stop the federal government from imposing restirctions on rights that aren't allowed by the constitution, but is free to over-ride subordinate government laws that restrict rights.

Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.
So the second amendment says:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear (but only openly) arms, shall not be infringed.
Is that how you're reading it, because I don't see that when I read it. Just because the government infringes upon it, doesn't mean it isn't still a RIGHT.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090126/ARTICLES/901260255

Stearns goes on offensive to push concealed-weapons law

By Bill Thompson
Staff Writer

Published: Monday, January 26, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, January 26, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.

OCALA - Saying Americans need a "fighting chance" to confront outlaws in a violent society, U.S. Rep Cliff Stearns has gone on the offensive to promote his bill to allow concealed-weapons permit-holders to cross state lines without fear of having their constitutional rights curtailed by another state's laws.

In an op-ed that appeared Monday on the Web site of the conservative publication Human Events, the Ocala Republican championed his measure as a way to enhance public safety as well as counteract liberal anti-gun activists whose policies he believes seek to undermine the Second Amendment protections afforded to gun owners.

But an anti-gun group questions whether Stearns and a co-sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, should be writing gun policy for states that seek an alternative route.

Stearns and Boucher filed the bill, known formally as the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197), earlier this month.

The bill would cause states that issue concealed-weapons permits to recognize valid permits held by visitors from other concealed-carry states, such as Florida. Yet those permit-holders would be subject to the regulations of the host state, not those of their home state.

If the host state does not issue concealed-weapons permits, the holder of a valid concealed-carry license would still be allowed to carry their weapon almost anywhere while in that state. They would not be permitted to carry their weapons into police stations, jails, courthouses, polling places, government meetings, schools, sporting events unrelated to firearms, in areas of bars or other places licensed for on-site consumption of alcohol where guns are prohibited, or inside the passenger area of airports.

The law would also not apply to people who are barred by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, nor would it allow a machine gun or a "destructive device" to be transported across state lines.

Other than in 2005 and ‘06, according to the FBI, the rate of violent crime — defined as murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault — has been on a steady downhill march since 1991. The agency's most recent report showed that the violent crime rate again began to drop in 2007 after the brief uptick and will do so again in 2008, based on preliminary data.

In his op-ed Stearns attributed this decline to the rise in concealed-carry laws.

He notes that states enacting concealed-carry laws have significantly less violent crime, as measured by the FBI, with 30 percent fewer murders, 46 percent fewer robberies and 12 percent fewer aggravated assaults. Overall, their crime rates are down 22 percent.

In Florida, which has had a concealed-carry law for more than two decades, murder rates have dropped 58 percent in that time, while violent crime overall is down 32 percent.

Stearns also observes that a U.S. Department of Justice survey of 2,000 criminals revealed that one-third of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured" by a gun-toting would-be victim. Moreover, 40 percent of them confessed that they had been deterred from committing a crime because they thought the victim was armed.

"Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than peace of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. . . . That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade."

But in addition to public safety, Stearns pushes the constitutional correctness of his cause.

"So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms," despite the apparent deterrent effect, Stearns wrote. "The reverse logic of this ‘knee jerk' reaction is astounding and has led to an outright assault on our basic constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally meant a death sentence for thousands of Americans."

"Our society is a violent society," Stearns concludes. "However, the innocent deserve access to the tools they need to defend themselves. Let's give those who decide to take responsibility of possessing a concealed-carry permit a fighting chance anywhere in America."

One supporter of the Stearns-Boucher bill described it as the missing link in American's gun policy.

John M. Snyder, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in a statement urging more members of Congress to sign on to the measure, noted that "gun grabbers slather at the potential for passing restrictive gun control legislation" with Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress.

Snyder argued that Democrats suffered considerably at the polls the last time a Democratic-led Congress "went gung-ho for gun control." That was 1994, when Congress, with then-President Clinton's approval, enacted the since-expired ban on semiautomatic weapons. The Republicans took over that year, only to relinquish control in 2006.

Noting the sunset of that prohibition and the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, "Snyder adds, "What has been missing is federal right to carry concealed legislation so that persons permitted to carry in a state may carry in other states, in much the same way as people licensed to drive in a state may drive in other states."

Yet a spokesman for a leading gun control group cautioned against putting too much faith in the safety or constitutional arguments for the Stearns-Boucher bill.

For one thing, Florida is a "terrible example" of the effectiveness of concealed-carry laws, said Doug Pennington, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Pennington pointed out that the same FBI reports Stearns relies on show that since 1987, when Florida enacted its concealed weapons law, until 2004, the state was the most violent, or second-most violent, state in America. The most recent report had it fifth.

"Exporting the Florida model to the rest of the country is probably not the greatest policy idea ever conceived," Pennington said.

He challenged Stearns' claim about the link between the drop in violence and the passage in concealed-carry laws as a "huge, complex, maddening" circumstance that defies such a simplistic explanation.

Crime dropped, Pennington maintains, also because tougher mandatory-sentencing laws kept violent criminals behind bars longer, because the economy improved and unemployment dipped and because there was more public education about gun crimes.

Moreover, the 1993 Brady Act has since 1994 precluded the sales of firearms to 1.6 million people who failed to pass federal mandatory background checks for several reasons, including being barred because of a criminal background, exhibiting a propensity for violence, or having mental health problems.

But the constitutional rationale cuts both ways, he maintains, for Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not have right-to-carry laws, or the 15 others that claim some discretion over who gets issued a concealed-weapons permit. (Thirty-three states, including Florida, are classified as "shall-issue," meaning the state cannot deny a permit to someone who meets all the legal criteria.)

"At least two states don't want it for their own reasons," Pennington said, "and it's wrong for a congressman from Florida or anywhere else to tell people in those states what kind of gun laws they should have."

Bill Thompson can be reached at 867-4117.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Mike wrote:
Mr. Y wrote:
Remember that post Lopez, Raich and Stewart citing Raich held that if the presence intrastate affected commerce outside the state then the commerce was interstate and thus subject to regulation by Congress. Not saying I agree, just thtat's what it is. Personally, I think we can resolve the constitutional handwringing another day, but today we might want to consider moving national reciprocity forwardto the last, recalcitrant states.
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.
Counsellor, do you have any authority for this "large difference?"
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Mike wrote:
Mr. Y wrote:
Remember that post Lopez, Raich and Stewart citing Raich held that if the presence intrastate affected commerce outside the state then the commerce was interstate and thus subject to regulation by Congress. Not saying I agree, just thtat's what it is. Personally, I think we can resolve the constitutional handwringing another day, but today we might want to consider moving national reciprocity forwardto the last, recalcitrant states.
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.
Counsellor, do you have any authority for this "large difference?"

Tenth and Fourteenth. Read 'em.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Raich stretches the bounds of the commerce clause to encompass virtually anything that Congress says effects commerce; neither the 10th nor the 14th prioritizes state "police powers" over the regulation of things travelling in or effecting interstate commerce.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Raich stretches the bounds of the commerce clause to encompass virtually anything that Congress says effects commerce; neither the 10th nor the 14th prioritizes state "police powers" over the regulation of things travelling in or effecting interstate commerce.
Raich built on Wickard v. Filburn. Neither case involved anything that had traveled in interstate commerce, and could only be claimed to "affect" interstate commerce by the most laughably implausible twist of logic ever seen in a judicial ruling.

"Growing your own (insert plant name here) affects interstate commerce, because then you're not buying it from someone else, who might possibly have bought it from someone who might possibly have crossed a state line with it." :banghead:
 

Francis Marion

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
194
Location
Taylorsville, Utah, USA
imported post

All this talk of violating states rights with this legislation is making me sick! Does a law that declares my AZ drivers license valid in all other states violate states rights? More importantly, the 2A gives me the right to carry so any legislation that tells the hold-out states to stop violating my rights as outlined in the Constitution sounds like good legislation to me.
 
Top