JagFarlane
New member
Senator Thune has proposed an amendment that would allow anyone with a CCW issued in their home state, to be able to carry in any state.
Article here
The debate began today.
Article here
The debate began today.
National CCW Law
- Thread starter JagFarlane
- Start date
brett30030
New member
A little more info and help contacting your reps
This is from the local Georgia organization that i am a member of, but you can follow the link to contact your senator.
Gun Owners of America is reporting that federal Senate bill S. 845, which would establish concealed carry reciprocity between the states, could get a vote as early as TODAY! Accordingly, your urgent action is needed right now.
The vote could attach S. 845 as an amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill, H.R. 2647. S. 845 It is based on the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution and would allow you to carry in any state that allows citizens to carry concealed as long as your home state would let you carry concealed! This would permit you, as a resident of Georgia, to carry concealed in every state but Illinois and Wisconsin (but you can carry openly in Wisconsin right now).
Here is the operative language that would affect us in Georgia:
(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 a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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.
Paragraph #2 takes care of residents of Vermont and Alaska, where permits aren't required to carry concealed. As noted above, this proposal does not cover Illinois or Wisconsin, as neither have any legal way for citizens to carry concealed handguns.
We are going to make this extremely easy for you to send an email to Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson using GOA's web site, by clicking here:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=13750856
It takes literally 30 seconds. Do you have 30 seconds to support Georgians carrying in South Carolina and other states where we cannot now carry? Please send this link to your friends and family, no matter in what state they reside (the link above sends the message to the correct two Senators based on the address put into the blanks). For those who have time today, please call Georgia's two Senators as well.
Sen. Isakson Tel: (202) 224-3643 and Tel: (770) 661-0999
Sen. Chambliss Augusta, GA 706-738-0302; Macon, GA 478-741-1417; Atlanta, GA 770-763-9090; Moultrie, GA 229-985-2112; and Washington, DC 202-224-3521
Let's get on it! Imagine being able to carry concealed in SC, NY, NJ, MA, MD, OR, HI, DC (DC does have a "concealed carry" law on the books, but it's not used much at all), CA, etc., on nothing more than your Georgia firearms license!
Please forward this email to family and friends, post it on firearm discussion fora that you visit, and generally spread the word! The Brady Campaign is sending panicky emails telling people that this is a "dangerous bill" that would permit "dangerous people" to carry firearrms "in your state." The opposition is gearing up to stop this amendment. We need to get out the word for people to support S. 845.
This is from the local Georgia organization that i am a member of, but you can follow the link to contact your senator.
Gun Owners of America is reporting that federal Senate bill S. 845, which would establish concealed carry reciprocity between the states, could get a vote as early as TODAY! Accordingly, your urgent action is needed right now.
The vote could attach S. 845 as an amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill, H.R. 2647. S. 845 It is based on the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution and would allow you to carry in any state that allows citizens to carry concealed as long as your home state would let you carry concealed! This would permit you, as a resident of Georgia, to carry concealed in every state but Illinois and Wisconsin (but you can carry openly in Wisconsin right now).
Here is the operative language that would affect us in Georgia:
(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 a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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.
Paragraph #2 takes care of residents of Vermont and Alaska, where permits aren't required to carry concealed. As noted above, this proposal does not cover Illinois or Wisconsin, as neither have any legal way for citizens to carry concealed handguns.
We are going to make this extremely easy for you to send an email to Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson using GOA's web site, by clicking here:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=13750856
It takes literally 30 seconds. Do you have 30 seconds to support Georgians carrying in South Carolina and other states where we cannot now carry? Please send this link to your friends and family, no matter in what state they reside (the link above sends the message to the correct two Senators based on the address put into the blanks). For those who have time today, please call Georgia's two Senators as well.
Sen. Isakson Tel: (202) 224-3643 and Tel: (770) 661-0999
Sen. Chambliss Augusta, GA 706-738-0302; Macon, GA 478-741-1417; Atlanta, GA 770-763-9090; Moultrie, GA 229-985-2112; and Washington, DC 202-224-3521
Let's get on it! Imagine being able to carry concealed in SC, NY, NJ, MA, MD, OR, HI, DC (DC does have a "concealed carry" law on the books, but it's not used much at all), CA, etc., on nothing more than your Georgia firearms license!
Please forward this email to family and friends, post it on firearm discussion fora that you visit, and generally spread the word! The Brady Campaign is sending panicky emails telling people that this is a "dangerous bill" that would permit "dangerous people" to carry firearrms "in your state." The opposition is gearing up to stop this amendment. We need to get out the word for people to support S. 845.
green-grizzly
New member
I'm sure it is purely coincidental, but Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010.
rampage841512
New member
I just read an article on the Fox News website. Seemed to be the same old, same old when it came to arguements for and against.
There is a full page ad in the USA Today newspaper by "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" asking Reid not to back the bill and asking readers to contact senators and advise them to vote against it.
Guess Dailey, Bloomberg and others like them definitely feel threatened by the possibility of the bill passing.
Guess Dailey, Bloomberg and others like them definitely feel threatened by the possibility of the bill passing.
I'm all for CCL holders carrying anywhere possible, but I don't like the idea of the Feds trumping states. It sets a bad precident and I still wouldn't be able to carry in Illinois or Wisconsin.
Besides, as it is now, I'm more than 600 miles away from a place I can't carry my gun unless you count Mexico.
Besides, as it is now, I'm more than 600 miles away from a place I can't carry my gun unless you count Mexico.
One unintended potential consequence of a law like this might be to encourage some states to eliminate concealed carry altogether. If they are obligated to recognize out of state CHL's, states like California and New York, for example, might well elect to do away with concealed carry permits for their own citizens.
The bill under consideration, S.845, is much like the other bills of the same "gender:" S.371, H.R.197 and H.R.1620 all say the same thing:
Any State that has lawful concealed carry and also has reciprocity agreements with any other State would have standing to sue the Feds for a usurpation of States powers, should they so desire. Many of the States that have reciprocity agreements tied to training (Nevada, anyone?), would most likely sue. That's just the most obvious case.
Now take a State like California or New York which has lawful concealed carry, but has no reciprocity with any other State... They will have standing to sue also.
I see suits like these more conceivable (politically) than just passing a law revoking concealed carry. The former would directly challenge the feds, via the 10th amendment, whereas the latter would simply be a means of rolling over and saying the States have no sovereignty.
This also ties neatly into the "ATF says NO to state sovereignty" thread, as the political climate in the U.S. is changing.
It will get knocked down on the first challenge. The bill does not state under what authority, if any, the Congress has for such a bill.
Any State that has lawful concealed carry and also has reciprocity agreements with any other State would have standing to sue the Feds for a usurpation of States powers, should they so desire. Many of the States that have reciprocity agreements tied to training (Nevada, anyone?), would most likely sue. That's just the most obvious case.
Now take a State like California or New York which has lawful concealed carry, but has no reciprocity with any other State... They will have standing to sue also.
I see suits like these more conceivable (politically) than just passing a law revoking concealed carry. The former would directly challenge the feds, via the 10th amendment, whereas the latter would simply be a means of rolling over and saying the States have no sovereignty.
This also ties neatly into the "ATF says NO to state sovereignty" thread, as the political climate in the U.S. is changing.
green-grizzly
New member
Antipitas:
I don't see the law being struck down. It is authorized by the constitution in at least three different ways, and two of those arguments are pretty good.
First, the old reliable: interstate commerce. There are of course no known limits to the wonders Congress may legislate under the interstate commerce clause. Note that it adds the law as Section 926D. The already existing Section 926B forces states to allow cops from other states and federal LEOs to carry concealed. Section 926C is somewhat similar if even more ludicrous, as it forces states to allow retired LEOs from other states to carry concealed. These laws have been on the books for quite a while, are based on the Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce, and they have never been struck down.
Second, Article IV, Section I of the constitution requires states to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to prescribe how these acts are proved and effect thereof. I think this is a dandy argument, but I don't think is what the authors of this bill are relying on. I'd also argue that not recognizing foreign permits, especially in states that don't allow any people from other states to carry, could violate Article IV, Section 2 (which basically says that states have to treat their citizens and foreign citizens in the same ways, at least in regards to fundamental rights).
Third, what the authors of the bill are relying upon is the 14th amendment, which they mention in the findings for the amendment.
Here are the Congressional findings for the amendment, which also discusses some of the constititional basis for it:
You can find the current text of the amendment here, towards the middle of this page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111zWStLp:e91047h
I don't see the law being struck down. It is authorized by the constitution in at least three different ways, and two of those arguments are pretty good.
First, the old reliable: interstate commerce. There are of course no known limits to the wonders Congress may legislate under the interstate commerce clause. Note that it adds the law as Section 926D. The already existing Section 926B forces states to allow cops from other states and federal LEOs to carry concealed. Section 926C is somewhat similar if even more ludicrous, as it forces states to allow retired LEOs from other states to carry concealed. These laws have been on the books for quite a while, are based on the Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce, and they have never been struck down.
Second, Article IV, Section I of the constitution requires states to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to prescribe how these acts are proved and effect thereof. I think this is a dandy argument, but I don't think is what the authors of this bill are relying on. I'd also argue that not recognizing foreign permits, especially in states that don't allow any people from other states to carry, could violate Article IV, Section 2 (which basically says that states have to treat their citizens and foreign citizens in the same ways, at least in regards to fundamental rights).
Third, what the authors of the bill are relying upon is the 14th amendment, which they mention in the findings for the amendment.
Here are the Congressional findings for the amendment, which also discusses some of the constititional basis for it:
You can find the current text of the amendment here, towards the middle of this page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111zWStLp:e91047h
Last edited:
gunner4391
New member
Excellent bill and I hope it passes, but I wonder, does it extend this coverage into places that are totally against handguns like Chicago?
vranasaurus
New member
The bill specifically mentions that you would be allowed to carry pursuant to the laws of the state you are in.
Let's say a state requires handguns to be registered but they won't let non residents register them.
Could you be charged with possession of an unregistered handgun instead of unlawful carrying?
Let's say a state requires handguns to be registered but they won't let non residents register them.
Could you be charged with possession of an unregistered handgun instead of unlawful carrying?
rampage841512
New member
This law is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about expanding the right to carry.
The first thing that needs to be done would be to establish the right to carry as a right. It hasn't been on the national level, and only in a few states (those that allow open carry/concealed carry, both or just one, without a license, permit, etc.).
The permit/license system is just another restriction that we should be fighting state by state, rather than expanding the problem by letting the federal government get involved.
The federal government does not read the second amendment as most of us do. Heller affirmed only a very limited right, that to own a gun and keep it in one's home. That's it.
The only acceptable federal solution I see to the problem would be for the federal government to adopt a national CCW licensing system that permitted concealed carry to those who are not convicted felons or mental defectives while at the same time permitting the unlicensed carrying of firearms openly. But even this solution could be a victim of exploitation for those in power to limit the ownership and carrying of firearms. All you've got to do is change the regulations just a little bit and very unrestrictive law becomes very restrictive indeed.
The first thing that needs to be done would be to establish the right to carry as a right. It hasn't been on the national level, and only in a few states (those that allow open carry/concealed carry, both or just one, without a license, permit, etc.).
The permit/license system is just another restriction that we should be fighting state by state, rather than expanding the problem by letting the federal government get involved.
The federal government does not read the second amendment as most of us do. Heller affirmed only a very limited right, that to own a gun and keep it in one's home. That's it.
The only acceptable federal solution I see to the problem would be for the federal government to adopt a national CCW licensing system that permitted concealed carry to those who are not convicted felons or mental defectives while at the same time permitting the unlicensed carrying of firearms openly. But even this solution could be a victim of exploitation for those in power to limit the ownership and carrying of firearms. All you've got to do is change the regulations just a little bit and very unrestrictive law becomes very restrictive indeed.
Such a complicated question comes down to such a non-complicated reality: $$$
To carry in a state means revenue. The states most against carrying are the ones that cost the most to carry in. Those are the states that will sue or argue against this bill. And, (I hesitate to say whether "fortunately" or "unfortunately") those are the states that hold the most clout in such an argument.
It's just another tax against rights. Do you want to smoke? It's going to cost you a bundle (I hate cig smoke but am pro cig rights). Do you want to carry a gun? It's going to cost you bundle.
This bill, if it passes, will save all of us hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in fees. It will also put a ton of guns in pockets across this country OVERNIGHT. I will be amazed if it passes.
And while I do hope that it passes for my own selfish reasons (as similarly felt by most of you) I condemn the practice of throwing in legislation into larger "sure to pass" bills. It's pure political prostitution.
As much as I hate that though, I do hope it passes. And I hope that it does not have dangerous and powerful negative consequences.
Regardless of how the rest of the world views our "love of guns", and regardless of how those who live in places where police respond to every call in less than a minute view our "love of guns", I think that most of us realize that we live in reality. The people put in charge to protect us are miles away and suffer from human failures. We have one life. Just one. This isn't a game. There are no restarts and you don't get to learn from your failure to try again another day.
Obama said that we cling to our religion and our guns. I don't have a religion, and I voted for a two faced politician already mentioned in this paragraph. My guns are to protect my heart from failing to beat, and my brain from failing to function. The ONLY thing I have is that. Life ain't great, but it's better than death.
It's a surprising and enheartening thing to see that our rights of self protection, in a country and a world where many feel that criminals actually have more rights than their victims, are increasing.
Whether this legislation passes or not this time around, it is a great sign that we are not a quiet crazy backwoods minority. We span every class, every race, every religion, and across the country, and we do not consider the Bill Of Rights something that we can use as a dart board.
In sad times, it's a proud moment.
To carry in a state means revenue. The states most against carrying are the ones that cost the most to carry in. Those are the states that will sue or argue against this bill. And, (I hesitate to say whether "fortunately" or "unfortunately") those are the states that hold the most clout in such an argument.
It's just another tax against rights. Do you want to smoke? It's going to cost you a bundle (I hate cig smoke but am pro cig rights). Do you want to carry a gun? It's going to cost you bundle.
This bill, if it passes, will save all of us hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in fees. It will also put a ton of guns in pockets across this country OVERNIGHT. I will be amazed if it passes.
And while I do hope that it passes for my own selfish reasons (as similarly felt by most of you) I condemn the practice of throwing in legislation into larger "sure to pass" bills. It's pure political prostitution.
As much as I hate that though, I do hope it passes. And I hope that it does not have dangerous and powerful negative consequences.
Regardless of how the rest of the world views our "love of guns", and regardless of how those who live in places where police respond to every call in less than a minute view our "love of guns", I think that most of us realize that we live in reality. The people put in charge to protect us are miles away and suffer from human failures. We have one life. Just one. This isn't a game. There are no restarts and you don't get to learn from your failure to try again another day.
Obama said that we cling to our religion and our guns. I don't have a religion, and I voted for a two faced politician already mentioned in this paragraph. My guns are to protect my heart from failing to beat, and my brain from failing to function. The ONLY thing I have is that. Life ain't great, but it's better than death.
It's a surprising and enheartening thing to see that our rights of self protection, in a country and a world where many feel that criminals actually have more rights than their victims, are increasing.
Whether this legislation passes or not this time around, it is a great sign that we are not a quiet crazy backwoods minority. We span every class, every race, every religion, and across the country, and we do not consider the Bill Of Rights something that we can use as a dart board.
In sad times, it's a proud moment.
Last edited:
maestro pistolero
New member
That would be worse, because then instead of the Feds just saying you all have to play nice and honor each other's permits, they would be doing the licensing themselves. What he government giveth, the government can taketh away. Soon they would be prying into medical and mentl health records, employement records, mandatory drug and alcohol testing, psychological exams, and on and on. No thanks.
Don't underestimate the ability and motivation of Harry Reid to push this through, and we are not without allies in the Dem's camp on 2A issues. Harry has CYA incentive to redeem himself after his very unpopular support (here in Nevada) for Sotomayor. This bill is getting a lot of national attention.
Last edited:
rwilson452
New member
It is my understanding that Illinois forbids the carry of pistols by mere motals thus that state you won't be able to carry. If I remember correctly Wisconsin is another two out of 50 ain't bad. not that I have any intention of going anywhere near either of them.
maestro pistolero
New member
Wisconsin is a LOC state, however. Illinois is 'right denied' totally, unless you're an Alderman or LE. 
Last edited:
innapropriate comment
Hey Texas born, (as I am too) I may not agree with what some people choose to do in regards to sexuality, but the Constitution and Bill of rights are for all citizens regardless of race, color,creed,religion,economic status, sexual preference etc. I dont think that comment belongs on this forum. (ref- homo marriage license) Let us stick to the issue at hand..Cw
Hey Texas born, (as I am too) I may not agree with what some people choose to do in regards to sexuality, but the Constitution and Bill of rights are for all citizens regardless of race, color,creed,religion,economic status, sexual preference etc. I dont think that comment belongs on this forum. (ref- homo marriage license) Let us stick to the issue at hand..Cw