Yup just posted a link to Facebook and the other forums i visit...... spread the word.
Thread: Just saw this on Foxnews.com
House of Representatives - POLITICS
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
By Shannon Bream
Published September 13, 2011
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.
Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.
Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits -- regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it's the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.
But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.
Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.
"Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."
Gun rights advocates say the dire warnings about expanding the rights of law-abiding citizens are overblown. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, said the American public is more interested in self-defense than scare tactics. He's also predicting a win for what has been dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
"It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- even President Obama's base is strongly in favor of this legislation," LaPierre said..
Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have successfully defeated similar legislation in the past, and vow to stop this bill as well. They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1XtKKkHcK
Yup just posted a link to Facebook and the other forums i visit...... spread the word.
Beware of the Beast Within..... Under God one Nation will be returned to its Foundation!
This is a tough one. It sounds good, Brady Bunch hates it, yet it puts the Feds in the drivers seat. The last part bugs me.
In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.
Might be a bad idea to allow the feds control, BUT it could also be great for those who visit California and New York.
Last edited by VW_Factor; 09-13-2011 at 10:30 PM.
Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
I don't like it either. The fed puts its nose into to many things and then regulates the hell out of it and most of your rights are lost (just look at the EPA - Hay is now a pollutant). The states should be left alone to do what they will. If a state doesn't honor your permit, then deal with it in your own manner. I do my best to stay out of those states all together and would rather visit the ones that allow open carry.
Of course, NY is a bit of a problem with their laws - it tends to cut off New England entirely if traveling on the roadways. I've always thought that state should be split up - one state would be the lower portion and would include the city of NY and Long island and the other state would include the upstate portion.
"But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems..."
Seems that we all managed to get driver's licenses to work nation-wide,; why not this?
"OC for ME" mentioned Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.
We need to remember (and remind the media and other Citizens) just WHO Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey REALLY is.
Before he was Philly's "top cop", he was the Chief of Police in Washington DC, and he had to resign in disgrace in 2007 over several huge Federal Civil Rights violation cases and corruption scandals that had plagued MPDC during his administration. Within DAYS of him resigning from DC, Philly Mayor Nutter offered him the Commissioner position in Philadelphia.
You gotta wonder about a Mayor who would actively and publicly court a Police Chief who was convicted of Federal Civil Rights crimes.
And BEFORE Ramsey was MPDC Chief, I'll give you three guesses where he started his career (and rose through the ranks) as a police officer...
Wait for it, wait for it....
Chicago, IL, from 1968-1998.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
So it should come as no surprise that Ramsey and his department would charge a law-abiding citizen with shooting a thuggish criminal thief. Ramsey is a criminal himself, and he's just "protecting his own". Birds of a feather, and all that...
Last edited by Dreamer; 09-14-2011 at 10:44 AM.
It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
--Barry Goldwater, 1964
[QUOTE=Contrarian;1610503...Seems that we all managed to get driver's licenses to work nation-wide,; why not this?[/QUOTE]
Kind of the same, but different. Remember we move from one state to another and we change our drivers license to that state (excluding all the circumstances like military and such), H.R. 822 says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of state law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms" http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text
Drivers license yes, "why not this?" because it's been drafted to maintain states rights on issuance. Which is BS? Since It only addresses half the issue, halfass legislation.
The only full fix is to amend the Constitution, IMO.
Many pro-gunners have been opposed to National Reciprocity on the basis that it would violate the 10th Amendment. Yet there is virtually no 10th Amendment jurisprudence (similar to the state of the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller).
While I'd personally like to have National Reciprocity pass (if for no other reason than to prove the Brady Campaign wrong - once again) there are plenty of other interesting potential benefits as well.
If National Reciprocity passes, conservative/libertarian pro-10th Amendment groups can expect the liberal/progressives to desparately mount a full frontal assault challenging National Reciprocity on (gasp) 10th Amendment grounds (not to mention at their own expense!).
Wouldn't it be nice to finally have a clear 10th Amendment case make it to the Supreme Court where the conservative States Rights and liberal (anti-gun) justices will largely be in agreement? The 10th Amendment needs an actual precedent in Supreme Court case law to mean anything. This is a far better opportunity to assert States Rights than lets say the Montana Federal Firearms Freedom Act (also working its way through the courts).
Meanwhile, during the several years that National Reciprocity is the law of the land, the Brady Campaign will continue to look foolish as their wild west predictions of blood and mayhem fail to materialize.
Citizens living in states that have draconian Concealed Carry regulatory schemes will start demanding their 2nd Amendment Rights as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy and which their own elected officials continue to deny them.
Whatever the final disposition of a National Concealed Carry Act, the outcome will be good for America.
Last edited by OC4me; 09-20-2011 at 01:11 PM.
No permit is required for most carry activities in Arizona, but is offered for reciprocity reasons, and required for some things like restaurant/bar carry, state government buildings and a few other locations.
Last edited by PavePusher; 09-14-2011 at 02:33 PM.
This would be pretty nice for everyone who is always traveling around..
What the Federal Government giveth, the Federal Government can take away....plus.
Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.
IIRC, before driver's license reciprocity, if you were suspended in one state, you could simply cross a state line and receive a DL in that state which would allow you to continue to drive in the state you were suspended in. Reciprocity allowed (required) states to query other states about the status of DL in that other state, and then deny a license based on another state's suspension.
So, by extending that out ... if the Fed's simply require reciprocity in recognizing another state's permit to carry, there really shouldn't be a problem with the individual states that have a permitting process in place. It will put places like NY, CA and IL between the proverbial rock and hard place. And should drive DC absolutely NUTZ!
Where I see the Feds making impositions is for states that do not require a National Background Check before issuing ... some states, in fact, I believe most that only have CC do require the background check, but those such as AZ don't require the background check.
Definitely something to watch.
cheers - okboomer
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!
“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)]