• 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.

Nationwide CCW (almost)

Yooper

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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
 
Z

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...

That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
 
A

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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.
Click to expand...

That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
Click to expand...
I agree!
 
Yooper

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

Yooper wrote:
That's how I view it. It would be a gun related bill that is actually constitutional.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
 
C

conservative85

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
625
Location
, ,
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top