National Right to Carry Bill

Sad.

It's sad, but I think OldBillThunderChief is right. As long an hard as it's already been for them to even begin the debate on a non-binding resolution, the Lord only knows what kind of difficulties a real law might face in the current Congress.
I will support it as actively as I can from where I am, just like I do all opportunities like this, I'm just afraid to hope for too much anymore.

On the other hand, it does stand a reasonable chance if enough people are willing to take the few minutes to right a letter or send an email. As much as the American public has disapproved lately, I think some of our elected representatives would be willing to support ANYTHING that there might be some constituent enthusiasm for.

Who knows? Hope, pray, and do what you can to make it happen. Until then, remember that a right is only such if you invoke it and act on it, not so if you choose not to.
 
From the NRA-ILA alert:
U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) recently introduced S. 388--the Senate version of H.R. 226, a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.
Click to expand...
Now look closely at the portion I underlined.

Now think about this. Drivers Licenses are not recognized by the States because of some Federal law. They are recognized by the States because of the compacts each State made with the other States. How can this be, you ask? Because the Feds have no authority to force one State to recognize the licenses of another State.

So give it to me... Under exactly what Constitutional authority would this Federal Law operate? In substance, it is no different than the issue of Drivers Licenses.

The other side of the coin: Why would you agree to give the Feds more power?

The individual compacts that allow your concealed permit to be recognized in another State is the only real and rightful way to achieve what we want, without giving the Feds authority in areas that it has no authority.

To argue that the Feds are exceeding their Constitutional limits over X but push for authority over Y is hypocritical, at the least.

It is a thoroughly bad idea from the very start.
 
While I like the idea, I'm not for the Feds getting involved in any legislation to make it so. In my opinion/experience, it will wind up convoluted, with inane exceptions/restrictions, and create more bureaucrats. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.
 
I understand it to do nothing more than make the states recognize CHLs under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. That can't be a bad thing.
 
I`m not for giving the feds more power either. But look, all the pro-gun bills that we introduced in the past were still unconstitutional. We had to go through Federal legislation to get the rights back that we already had. This bill is no different.
 
I think the portion of the Const. that would allow this is called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", Antipitas. It's the chunk that forces states to recognize the DLs of other states amongst other things...

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect there of.
 
I don't think that CCW comes under the FF&C clause. Even under the Articles there was a FF&C clause, but I do not believe the Confederacy had any jurisdiction over CCW, and I do not believe that the US has any such jurisdiction today.
 
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution deals with what's called "comity" law. For a very short but good article on what this is about, go here.

Keeping in mind what you read on FindLaw, you can next go to the wikipedia article.

Hugh, once again, we agree.
 
I agree with Hugh. In the FF&C, it says;
The clause was primarily intended to provide for comity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings.
Click to expand...

This bill is a federal law, right?
 
Senator Thune from South Dakota is sponsor of this bill. I sent him some bucks in his Senate race. He is PRO-GUN and a good family man. He is the future so let's keep an eye on him. We need all the help we can get. These next couple of years the anti's will be coming out of the woodwork. Please stick together. I have been working the polls for years and you can count the young people under 25 that vote on your hand (literally speaking).The WW2 guys are dying off, SO IT IS UP TO US!!!!!! :)
 
The other side of the coin: Why would you agree to give the Feds more power?

The individual compacts that allow your concealed permit to be recognized in another State is the only real and rightful way to achieve what we want, without giving the Feds authority in areas that it has no authority.

To argue that the Feds are exceeding their Constitutional limits over X but push for authority over Y is hypocritical, at the least.

It is a thoroughly bad idea from the very start.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. If the Federal government becomes what makes CHLs valid, then it can just as easily make them all invalid if it decides to do so down the road. Keep the Federal government out of this. I think it was Ron Paul who stated, "not every problem requires a federal solution."
 
Yes, this is a tough call - I have to agree about not giving the Feds more power over this. However, it would be nice to have more consistency with regard to reciprocity. Its not easy knowing the little "do's and don'ts" with each states cc laws, etc.
 
States Call

I think that all states should recognize each other's laws on this matter, but if that were to go through they would have everybody's gun registered. If I'm not mistaken that's what Hitler did in Germany.
 
Everyone, instead of complaining about all the things that you think this bill is, or is not, why don`t you get involved with your Congressman and ask for the language of the bill and then decide.
 
antipitas: while I fully agree that giving the federal government more power is rarely - if ever - a wise idea, doesn't the second amendment itself give it constitutional authority over this? I figured it would be similar to the federal government making sure no state shuts down newspapers arbitrarily or imprisons people without due cause. wouldn't this just be an enforcement of the 2nd or is there something critical to the argument that I'm missing? :confused:
 
Antipas, if I may harbor a guess... It sounds like you might be on the "the government shouldn't regulate guns at all" bandwagon. And, if so, then bully for you! But, it's one thing to say that the government shouldn't have the authority to regulate guns, and it's something entirely different to say that the federal government doesn't have the authority to force the states to offer comity to the regulations of other states. In fact, the federal government has original jurisdiction through the 2nd Amendment, and they have the right to enforce comity through the Full Faith and Credit clause.

In fact, I think we've gone about the "gun regulation" question fairly backwards. I think the government ought to lay down a bright-line rule that there are no gun regulations for its "citizens," but then deny citizenship to convicted violent criminals. (That means, no right to vote, no right to carry, no right to welfare, no right to ANYTHING.) If you deny the rule of law in the U.S., you deny your membership in the U.S.

That said, my idea is NOT gonna happen, for a NUMBER of logistical reasons. So, we have to work with what we have. Right now, we have CCW permits in 48 states. I think it will be a step in the right direction to mandate enforcement of comity in permits.

Just a thought...
 
I don't think I like this idea. Just because the fed OK it, my state might just do away all together with CWP so we don't have to allow GA citizens to carry since they have a zero training policy to get a CWP. Personally, I think the required training policy is a good one. Before you start flaming, think back to the class you took, and think of some of the people in your class! We had one guy that NEVER even held a gun, and brought one he just purchased the day before to the range in the box with the price tag still hanging on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top