• 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.

You are kidding could this be true?

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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.

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Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Yes, It Is True...

This is the second attempt to get National Reciprocity passed. Let's hope we can this time but I am sure Nobama will Veto it.

The last time this was attempted Kohl voted against it. Kohl wrote me that he would not vote for it because it "Violated States Rights". This from the senator that violated states rights with his GFSZ law.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
This has been introduced some time ago and I agree with rcawdor57 about it getting passed.It might not even get passed the Dem. Senate majority. It may have a good chance in 2012 flip the nation like nation just like we did in Wisconsin.

And if it passes, I am sure states like California and New York to name a few, will file lawsuits saying it violates states rights.
 
Last edited:

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
SNIP

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." SNIP

I.don't see this as hard to figure out as they seem to think it is. Add some wording to the bill to this affect:

Any persons having had their "CHP" revoked, suspended, denied or otherwise prohibited from legaly obtaining a "CHP" from their State of Residence, are therefore denied the ability to use any non-resident "CHP" from a State not of his residence within the borders of his State of Residence.
This shall not then deny the holder of such non-resident "CHP" to carry concealed in States not of his residence unless expressly and individually prohibited by that State by means of felonous or firearm related convictions that would prohibit the use of the "CHP" within the borders of that State to resident "CHP" holders.



I probalby messed up the legal speak, but I think I got the point out. If your prohibited from obtaining one in your state then they won't have to honor one in your name from another state.. Seems simple to me.. I should suggest that to my congressman...



Sent using tapatalk
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
This has been introduced some time ago and I agree with rcawdor57 about it getting passed.It might not even get passed the Dem. Senate majority. It may have a good chance in 2012 flip the nation like nation just like we did in Wisconsin.

And if it passes, I am sure states like California and New York to name a few, will file lawsuits saying it violates states rights.

I'm sure ILLinoise would be on that list as well.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
I.don't see this as hard to figure out as they seem to think it is.

It is a bullsh%t story designed to illicit a response. The guy carried a firearm illegally. Having a Florida permit did not change that. Notice the liar Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey wasn't quoted as saying Hill was stopped multiple times for CC but the cops let him go... because they thought he had a valid Florida permit. Just because Florida did not send an agent to personally retrieve Hill's Florida permit doesn't mean the permit was still valid.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
I'm sure ILLinoise would be on that list as well.

Illinois would be the only no carry state, even HI would have to allow carry by foreign permit holders, subject only to statutory restrictions placed on their permits issued to residents. Even if they do not issue any to their residents the carry law is on the books triggering the proposed federal provisions. States that place carry restrictions on a permit must allow non-resident permit holders carry in accordance to their least restrictive permit.
 

civilwarguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
197
Location
elkhorn wi
It is a bullsh%t story designed to illicit a response. The guy carried a firearm illegally. Having a Florida permit did not change that. Notice the liar Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey wasn't quoted as saying Hill was stopped multiple times for CC but the cops let him go... because they thought he had a valid Florida permit. Just because Florida did not send an agent to personally retrieve Hill's Florida permit doesn't mean the permit was still valid.

You mean a criminal carried even though it was illegal???? who would have thought :banghead:
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Well, this is technically against "States Rights", and I put that in quotes because there's no such thing. This is a 10A issue, or states powers. However, if it is an unconstitutional federal power to regulate this, it must surely be unconstitutional to mandate health care, or enforce the GFSZA. Senators like Kohl, and formerly Feingold voted agains reciprocity on 10A grounds but that's because it suited their agenda. They just want to usurp states powers when they have a vested interest same as the Republicans.

What I think we really need is some modern day case law surrounding the 9A. It should be extended to us, in the very least through the due process clause in the 14A (but preferably under the PoI clause), so that we may bring up federal civil rights lawsuits on both 2A and 9A grounds. If they wrote the reciprocity bill citing the 2A instead of the commerce clause this would make things more interesting. Does anyone have the text of the current bill? Usuallly it states in front of them under which federal power they are being enforced. On the other hand, I'm not sure that positively enforcing the BoR is under the purview of the powers of congress which defaults to the courts instead...back to the 2A/9A federal suit.
 
Last edited:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Text Of Bill HR 822 As Introduced In The House...

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in 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 ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

1
(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

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) 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.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I cannot LINK to the bill since it requires a LOGIN. You may find it at www.opencongress.org It is a great site to keep up on what the Feds are doing, good or bad.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

Thanks!
The above is what I was looking for. The changes to this part of the bill compared to the last trys may make this a win constitutionally. I'd prefer they leave out the second part of #8 though.

As I mused about in my previous post however; is #3 really true, at least under current case law? They must be getting this from Aritcle IV section 2. Anyone got some jurisprudence on this?

Now, this is the stuff that's interesting! LOL
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Others may disagree with me but I believe this is one of the few things the Federal government has jurisdiction over. The 2nd amendment is in the Federal Constitution and the Federal government enforcing it is something they should do.
 

Woodchuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
306
Location
West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
It does violate states rights. Violation of the 10th amendment. But mandatory permits in general are a violation of the 2nd so .......
...........

This is the mess we get into when we get outside the basis principles of the constitution.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
We already have national reciprocity in the 2nd amendment. If the dumbarse Supreme Court would just rule that it applies to all states, which it does, we would not need another law. Putting the feds in charge of your carry rights is dangerous.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
It does violate states rights. Violation of the 10th amendment. But mandatory permits in general are a violation of the 2nd so .......
...........

This is the mess we get into when we get outside the basis principles of the constitution.

Truer words have seldom been spoken.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
We already have national reciprocity in the 2nd amendment. If the dumbarse Supreme Court would just rule that it applies to all states, which it does, we would not need another law. Putting the feds in charge of your carry rights is dangerous.

Reciprocity is for CC permits, not for "keep and bear." That is reality. Unless a person lives in, or travels to a state that outlaws OC, "reciprocity" is not a 2A issue. Unless concealed carry becomes an unlicensed mode of "keep and bear" someday.
 
Top