Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Thread: The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463

    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    This could very well pass this year. It is a slam dunk in the House, and 60 senators are A or better rated by the NRA. It needs to be veto proof, however, with the anti-liberty pos in the "white" house.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    st charles, mo
    Posts
    19
    This is amazing. I'll share this with everyone.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    I doubt the President will veto this in an election year.
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico
    Posts
    242
    My concern is that this could turn into a Trojan Horse.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Just another way to get the sheep to ask PERMISSION....I'm not interested.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    This isn't asking for permission, it is recognizing what should be a privilege, constitutionally speaking.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  8. #8
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    As much as I think everyone who can legally carry a firearm should be allowed to in all 50 states I have one problem with this bill. It says any state that doesn't have concealed carry you cannot carry in. The problem I see with this is would be states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc... getting rid of their permitting system and not only would out-of-state carries not be able to carry there but neither would the people who actually live there.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I understand that this impedes on the states rights to make decisions for themselves. I also understand the that 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by the states (most of them). So we are fighting something unconstitutional with something unconstitutional and it just happens to work out in our favor...sort of... whatever, I'm down. The constitution doesn't exist anymore in this country so this is better than what we have right now.
    “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)]

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    As long as there is no hidden "gotchas" in the bill, great! But I will not be happy until the SCOTUS affirms every citizens right to own and openly carry arms without restrictions.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Its a good start. Plus we can hold the presidents feet to the fire in an election year.
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    As much as I think everyone who can legally carry a firearm should be allowed to in all 50 states I have one problem with this bill. It says any state that doesn't have concealed carry you cannot carry in. The problem I see with this is would be states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc... getting rid of their permitting system and not only would out-of-state carries not be able to carry there but neither would the people who actually live there.
    Only IL is excluded under the text. Ex post facto action to subvert the law could very well be overturned in Federal Court, and I think it unlikely. Your point about residents in the slave states is a good one. Saying only non-residents' home state CCWs would be honored keeps the subjects from getting an out of state, non-res.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Sincerely do NOT like this bill and do not think it will get approval in the Senate.

    This is the proverbial camel's nose beneath the tent where the federal government is concerned in the RKBA. If it became law, rest assured it will be modified by congress at a later date, changed by the alphabet agencies et al and we will end up the losers.

    See this as infringement on States Rights and not a genuine act to help us. We do not have federal driving licenses issued to each and every legal driver - why forced recognition with onerous exceptions?

    For my money, stay with reciprocity and the court systems to straighten out the inequities.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Grapeshot~
    See this as infringement on States Rights
    H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any 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 firearms may be carried would apply within its borders.
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    Grapeshot~

    H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any 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 firearms may be carried would apply within its borders.
    Most definitely see this as an infringement on Sates Rights!

    The federal government would be telling the states what to accept or not within their borders. This time around the standard would seem to be innocuous, the next modification/change to such a federal law may be onerous - what then? Can you unring the bell giving the feds that power?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Most definitely see this as an infringement on Sates Rights!

    The federal government would be telling the states what to accept or not within their borders. This time around the standard would seem to be innocuous, the next modification/change to such a federal law may be onerous - what then? Can you unring the bell giving the feds that power?
    The 10th Amendment reads

    that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

    Wouldn't the second amendment prohibit the states from using the state's rights argument to nullify the 2nd amendment as well as the 14th amendment?

    Also, for the sake of being intellectual honesty....please answer the question below.

    Shouldn't FOPA be repealed since it's an infringement on "state's rights" by your logic.? Shouldn't New York be allowed to throw you in a cage for years for transporting a handgun through New York on your way to Maine? After all, New York should be allowed to completely prohibit you from touching or transporting a handgun through the state, but that pesky Firearms Ownership Protection Act blocks that. By your logic, FOPA is a infringement on state's rights.

    That would be a classic state's rights argument. There is plenty of evidence that gun owners are their own worst enemy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    This def does not violate the 10th, mainly because of the interstate commerce clause. And looking at the fact the constitutional rights apply to all states (even though all of them violate it in one way or another). As long as states like New York and New Jersey keep their current CC systems or improve on them for citizens I will be in favor of this bill.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    This will become more useless crap that doesnt address the real problem.
    Get me a bill that enforces " Shall not be infringed" and I will support it.
    Am I the only one who is tired of all this beating around the bushes?

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    The 10th Amendment reads

    that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

    Wouldn't the second amendment prohibit the states from using the state's rights argument to nullify the 2nd amendment as well as the 14th amendment?
    No, not at all
    . The 2A guarantees the right, but NOT how it may be exercised. If a state allows OC, then they may exercise control of CC.

    Also, for the sake of being intellectual honesty....please answer the question below.

    Shouldn't FOPA be repealed since it's an infringement on "state's rights" by your logic.? Shouldn't New York be allowed to throw you in a cage for years for transporting a handgun through New York on your way to Maine? After all, New York should be allowed to completely prohibit you from touching or transporting a handgun through the state, but that pesky Firearms Ownership Protection Act blocks that. By your logic, FOPA is a infringement on state's rights.
    Again, not so. FOPA allows one to transport "through" (not disturbing state rights to control how you carry "in" their state) but offers no protection if you stop off to see your grandmother.

    That would be a classic state's rights argument. There is plenty of evidence that gun owners are their own worst enemy.
    See embedded replies in blue above.

    Think that there is considerably more evidence that the federal government is our worst enemy with regard to our rights. I mean really! They are "here to help us" with our 2A rights - Gee now I feel all warm and fuzzy. An example of federal restrictions comes into play when a felon applies to have his rights reinstated by his state, which he may get, but the feds will NOT do so.

    What is the problem with voluntary reciprocity between the states and letting the judicial system handle those that deny us our basic rights? There has been a steadily growing list of successful agreements and successful court wins - why do we now need the federal govt to solve this diminishing problem? What do we gain and what potential is there for loss? Surely you can see that the camel's hind parts will follow it's nose.

    I fully understand the frustration with not being able to maximize the number of states in which we can carry. Point of fact, this proposed legislation does not grant that "privilege" in all 50 states so even there the issue of states rights is recognized, even if obliquely so.

    You want a good federal law - pass Constitutional Carry, make it the law of the land. States rights would still be the battle ground leaving it to the judicial system to resolve.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    That will give the feds a list for future disarmament.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Most definitely see this as an infringement on Sates Rights!

    The federal government would be telling the states what to accept or not within their borders.
    Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment is? Being the supreme law of the land we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms and that is a law that over powers the states gun laws. (unfortunately it isn't enforced)
    “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)]

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sincerely do NOT like this bill and do not think it will get approval in the Senate.

    This is the proverbial camel's nose beneath the tent where the federal government is concerned in the RKBA. If it became law, rest assured it will be modified by congress at a later date, changed by the alphabet agencies et al and we will end up the losers.

    See this as infringement on States Rights and not a genuine act to help us. We do not have federal driving licenses issued to each and every legal driver - why forced recognition with onerous exceptions?

    For my money, stay with reciprocity and the court systems to straighten out the inequities.
    Couldn't disagree more. Expansion of rights, albeit the privileged portion thereof, is a giant step forward and in keeping with the P&I clause of the Constitution. We don't need federal drivers' licenses or Federal CCWs. We need recognition of a state's granting a privilege which should be honored by sister states. Maybe something will happen down the road as you suggest. Facts not in evidence, and I'll take a win today and not worry about what next decade brings.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    That will give the feds a list for future disarmament.
    No it won't. There is no record keeping involved of CCWs at any level in this bill.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Hearing Scheduled for H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Friday, September 09, 2011


    For months we have been reporting on a critically important bill: H.R. 822—the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. This vital NRA-backed legislation, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

    Thanks to much hard work and action taken by NRA and our members, H.R. 822 has now garnered 242 cosponsors in the U.S. House. On Tuesday, September 13, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the bill.

    READ MORE
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

    Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

    SOURCE
    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040

    www.mainecwptraining.com

    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •