Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Nationwide CCW (almost)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    The following is a proposed amendment ( No. 1618) to the FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill (S 1390):

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.371:

    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 in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, 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 in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, 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.





    Seems to allow a person who holds a permit from any state to carry in any state (except Illinois and Wisconsin), and also, persons who live in Alaska and Vermont would be able to carry in any state (except Illinois and Wisconsin) without a permit.

    Let's hope this passes. Hopefully the NRA, GOA, SAF and others will put the pressure on the pro-gun democrats and republicans to get this passed
    Rand Paul 2016

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    So a state could circumvent this by making a new law that states that any person carrying a concealed weapon under authority of an out-of-state permit is guilty of a felony.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I'm weary of any and all federal gun legislation, including this.

    As far as I'm concerned, the only federal gun law should be the second amendment, and the only other federal intervention with gun laws should be the SCOTUS over turning state gun bans as being unconstitutional. So on principal I don't think I'm in favor of this.

    As Micheal Badnarik put it, we should think of ourselves as citizens of our state, not the US. I agree, and I don't want the federal government telling me where when what or how I can carry, particularly if it revolves around some tyrannical permit or license. Frankly they have no right.

    I'm not going to go piss everyone off and lobby against this bill as I would if it was an anti gun measure, but at the same time I'm not going to ask the congress critters to support it.

    About the only thing like this I could possibly see myself getting behind would be a nation wide loaded carry law, allowing carry anywhere but prisons by everyone 18 and up with no convictions, and done strictly in the name of protecting the correct definition of the second amendment.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    Michigander, you could lobby against this bill and not piss me off.springerdave.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Nor would I be disappointed.
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Less is more!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    So a state could circumvent this by making a new law that states that any person carrying a concealed weapon under authority of an out-of-state permit is guilty of a felony.
    No.

    This legislation states only that the state can apply the same restrictions on the carry locations as they do on their own "standard" CCW.



  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I understand the opposition to anything the US Congress does, but one could argue that this amendment does nothing more than assert the powers delegated to Congress in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause). This article addresses the duties that states within the United States respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    I understand the opposition to anything the US Congress does, but one could argue that this amendment does nothing more than assert the powers delegated to Congress in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause). This article addresses the duties that states within the United States respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states.
    That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
    Rand Paul 2016

  10. #10
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    I understand the opposition to anything the US Congress does, but one could argue that this amendment does nothing more than assert the powers delegated to Congress in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause). This article addresses the duties that states within the United States respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states.
    That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
    I agree!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    If the end result of the proposed amendment is already addressed in the Constitution, then why another amendment?springerdave.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    Sen Reid said he would let the bill come up for a vote. The typical anti's (Schumer, Lautenberg, etc) are threatening a filibuster.

    Reid must be in fear of losing his job. He wouldn't p.o. his fellow democrats if he wasn't worried about being re-elected.
    Rand Paul 2016

  13. #13
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
    There is nothing in the constitution that allows for required government permission to be armed. What the second amendment says is that the people keeping and bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free state. It lays it out as an obligation to your state.

    What the constitution doesn't say that the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms in limited circumstances will be respected, provided the people who do it bribe the government. On the other hand, that is what this bill says.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    I agree with you, but since we live where most states have a CPL/CHL/CCW permit/license, those permits/licenses should be honored in the rest of the states, much like a drivers license or marriage license.

    I would hope that eventually (and this law may help) every state would allow everybody (law abiding) to carry without a permit.

    Since this amendment, as written currently, would allow citizens of VT and AK to carry without a permit, the argument could be made in other states that "VT and AK residents can carry here without a permit. Why do our own citizens need a permit?"

    It would probably start in states like ME and NH, which probably have a significant amount of VT persons in their state at any one time. The more states that move to eliminate permits will mean the odds of people carrying in anyone state legally without a permit increases.

    If, for example, IN, OH, WI, and MN all had VT style carry, it would be harder for the MI legislature to keep a permit system in place for its residents when so many non-residents are potentially carrying in the state without a permit.


    Rand Paul 2016

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    At this very time Bar Bar Boxer is on the Senate floor talking about this bill!springerdave.

    Edit to add. I am almost ashamed to admit that I agree with her on some points.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    At this very time Bar Bar Boxer is on the Senate floor talking about this bill!springerdave.
    On C-SPAN 2 right now.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    Thune's heart is in the right place... but we still in my opinion, better off with reciprocity.springerdave.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Voting on Thune Amendment right now on C-SPAN 2.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    The senate rejected the provision.springerdave.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Thank god this failed...I understand peoples obsession with the full faith and blah blah blah clause, but! that addresses public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, I don't see Laws in that list of fancy words. Besides this all hinges on whether or not you believe you have to have a permit to carry period. If you want to talk constitutional, how bout the 2nd, and 9th & 10th amendment. If we just followed these 3 we would not need a cpl, nor would we need legislation to carry concealed from state to state. I tend to stay away from clauses, they tend to leave room for the Feds. to wiggle into our god given rights...any one remember the Interstate commerce act clause. Some how the Gov. thinks that allows them to regulate sawed off shot guns....any hoo thats my 2 cent!

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Thank god this failed...I understand peoples obsession with the full faith and blah blah blah clause, but! that addresses public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, I don't see Laws in that list of fancy words. Besides this all hinges on whether or not you believe you have to have a permit to carry period. If you want to talk constitutional, how bout the 2nd, and 9th & 10th amendment. If we just followed these 3 we would not need a cpl, nor would we need legislation to carry concealed from state to state. I tend to stay away from clauses, they tend to leave room for the Feds. to wiggle into our god given rights...any one remember the Interstate commerce act clause. Some how the Gov. thinks that allows them to regulate sawed off shot guns....any hoo thats my 2 cent!
    CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

    I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

    We live in reality not theoritical land....

    Too bad the bill got voted down. Passage would have been a significantadvancingstep in the institutionalization of legal gun carry.

    Kudos to Sen. Thune, et al.



  22. #22
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

    I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

    We live in reality not theoritical land....
    A lot of great men died to secure the rights protected under the constitution. It took all kinds of hardship and suffering to bring that document into existence and protect it. It's an unprecedented achievement, which was then and still is worth laying your life down to protect if the need arises. And good grief, certainly when it gets pissed on by Congress that's the time to speak up, not nod your head in subtle agreement or indifference.

    It is a shame you don't respect the importance of that more.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

    I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

    We live in reality not theoritical land....
    A lot of great men died to secure the rights protected under the constitution. It took all kinds of hardship and suffering to bring that document into existence and protect it. It's an unprecedented achievement, which was then and still is worth laying your life down to protect if the need arises. And good grief, certainly when it gets pissed on by Congress that's the time to speak up, not nod your head in subtle agreement or indifference.

    It is a shame you don't respect the importance of that more.
    Actually, I meant psuedo-purists.

  24. #24
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    "Pseudo-purist"???

    Hank T.... I expected better from you.

    Labels are bandied about in today's culture that have gone from objectively placing people into certain groups and demographics towards full scale propaganda.

    Purist, fundamentalist, progressive, reformer, conservative, liberal, neo-conservative, capitalist, communist, socialist, Keynesian capitalist, Marxist, left, right, and all that's left, right? What once were labels now serve as pejoratives, mis-characterizations, and Orwellian double speak.

    Just because you claim some some information as "fact" and "reality" does not make it so. Ask gun owners in WI or IL if a license to carry concealed is part of the "gun carrying world" or "reality". Also, many here do not have a CPL and never will, what is their "reality"?

    Although I too was OK with this proposal if it had gone through, I will strongly defend another member's right to question the issue, even on it's most basic assumptions.

    Perhaps you don't see what you wrote as pejorative. I would disagree, however. By calling a member a "pseudo-purist", your intent appears to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from a true examination of the facts of the matter; an attempt to thwart rational discussion.

    I expected better here.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  25. #25
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942

    Post imported post

    There's a reason they call him Dr.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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