Is this a good thing or bad thing?

MarkW

New member
Found this while expanding my horizons. It is fairly recent. I didn't see the subject listed in previous posts. You fellow TFL'rs may have already beat this one to death, being somewhat new here, I don't know.

I am undecided on weather it has good merit or if it is just more Federal BS. I can see good and bad. What do you folks think?

Oh, the link is at the end of the post if you care to read the whole bill.

www.gunowners.org
Mar 1999

HR 407 IH

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 407

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a
State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 19, 1999

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a
State may carry certain concealed firearms in that 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 `Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times
every year--or 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to
protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(2) Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves
against sexual abuse. And as many as one-half million times every year, somebody carrying a gun
away from home defends himself or herself.

(3) Citizens shoot and kill over 1,500 criminals a year, which is more than twice as many as police kill.

(4) Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming
majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8
percent of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

(5) Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves
over 1.9 million times a year.

(6) Police cannot possibly protect every individual citizen. Currently, there are about 150,000 police
officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans--or almost
1,700 citizens per officer.

(7) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of Americans to
carry firearms in defense of themselves and others.

SEC. 3. 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 926A the
following:

http://www.gunowners.org/gthr407.htm

[This message has been edited by MarkW (edited March 08, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by MarkW (edited March 08, 1999).]
 
Mark,

Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It would appear to be a step in the right direction. :D



------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Wow! Not just a concealed handgun, but a "concealed firearm"!

That might include shotguns & rifles behind (or under) the seat of a vehicle or in the trunk of a car. So long as it is concealed, we could once again drive thru New Jersey! :)

Sure might simplify going hunting or to gun shows, etc. across state lines.

I'll be some states will protest because "training in THAT state isn't as good as training in THIS state".

Tough. "... shall not be infringed."

Seems good to me! To YOU???

Hmmm. How do we get it out of committee?


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 08, 1999).]
 
I haven't read the text of it, but barring any "twists" its great for 2 reasons.

Most people (test it out and ask your co-workers) do not know that the police are not mandated to protect the individual, and they do not know that this has been determined in the courts. This is one reason why HCI, et al have been so successful..."you don't need a gun, the police are there to save you". They do not think it through and realize that for the police to really be able to protect everyone..1/2 the population would have to be a cop...all of us are assigned our own personal cop. A bill like this would bring this out from a source other than the "demon NRA" or us "gun-psychos".

Secondly, HCI et al will obviously fight this and after years of saying the cops can protect you, what kind of arguement can they say to dispute the facts of the law? This is going to deny them them one of their most successful and useful ploys. This will be real fun :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I've heard rumors that this was in the works for some time. I glad to finally see it. Be sure to contact your Represenative in support of this bill. Mention the bill by name and number, that lets them know that you are paying attention.

BTW: Clinton will probably veto it.

[This message has been edited by Grayfox (edited March 08, 1999).]
 
At the Gun Owners website, they have an area where you can print or cut and paste for email a prewritten letter to send to you Representative asking them to Co-Sponsor the bill. It is very important for a bill to have Co-Sponsorship. The more it has the better the chance of it moving forward and possibly passing.

This Bill only has 3 or 4 Co Sponsors.

I have already sent several of the emails asking the ProGun Politicians to support it.

www.gunowners.org
 
Back
Top