National Right To Carry Reciprocity

F

FLA2760

New member
Hi
The following is from an email I received from NRA.
NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547--a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill 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 others' carry permits, just as they recognize a drivers license.
For more information on the bill, please visit
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189
 
National Right-To-Carry Bill

This may have been posted already but wanted to make sure all had a chance to read it and encourage our legislators to get it moving.

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547--a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill 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 others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.

For more information on the bill, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 4547!
 
hmmm. I have mixed feelings on this. Up front it sounds like a good idea. BUT I am VERY cautious about the Federal Government requiring states to do anything. And anyway, suppose some leftist state doesn't want to do it like say Kalifornia? They can just nullify it. What is the federal government going to do, invade them and make them do it? That's certainly not a sane move.

If the Federal government can make a state do something in our favor (gun owners) in the short run than it can make any state do anything it wants to in the long run. I realize this has become rather common practice since 1865 but the principle on which the country was founded in 1776 and indeed 1607 and indeed back to the middle ages holds true. I am against centralization of power. The federal government doesn't need to be giving a license to carry a gun anyway (nor should the states), in my view the right to bear arms means just that. We have a right to bear arms. A right is not something the state or national government can or should give or take away.
 
This doesn't require the states to do anything. It prevents people from becoming Instant Criminals when they cross state lines, and that when exercising a right enumerated in the Federal Constitution.
What is the federal government going to do, invade them and make them do it? That's certainly not a sane move.
Click to expand...
They did that when there were racial discrimination problems. They can do it again. The states wouldn't have much success nullifying such a law, since concealed carry is pretty much undetectable most of the time.

There was another ccw reciprocity bill, introduced last Spring (edit: it's HR 1243, you can search for that number to get threads on it), that proposed nation-wide CCW for anyone who had a permit in his home state. This one is much better. It allows nationwide ccw for anyone who has a permit in any state.

Malfader, thanks for pointing out this bill! FLA2760 beat you to it by a day, though. :) Threads merged...

It's encouraging to see the NRA taking an interest in this legislation.

Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4547:
Bill summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04547:

Currently in the House Judiciary committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

Here's how I read it:

The gist is that any state's permit is valid in any other state, with the following qualifications:

If a state issues permits, the state's place-restrictions (schools, bars, etc.) apply to those with out-of-state permits.

If a state doesn't issue permits and allows concealed carry (VT and AK), the state's place-restrictions apply, just as if the person didn't have a license.

If a state doesn't issue permits and forbids carry, federal law overrides and specifies its own list of place-restrictions, and allows concealed carry everywhere else.

The one thing that's not clear is that, because the section title talks about nonresidents, the federal law might not apply to a non-resident permit carried by a person in his home state. That might be a problem for people living in states that aren't shall-issue.

For everyone living in a free state, this bill is darned near perfect. It neatly avoids the problems with VT and AK citizens not having permits (they can get a permit from any state that'll issue them one, and can then carry in all 50).

The mechanism used by the bill is the interstate commerce clause, so it doesn't require 2nd Amendment benevolence on the part of federal judges who would undoubtedly end up reviewing the constitutionality of the law.

One minor glitch is that it specifically disallows carry of machineguns or DDs, although SBRs and SBSs and AOWs are apparently okay.
 
Pretty much spot on, tyme.

I'm against this bill, however. Simple reason: We simply don't need more Federal encroachment based upon the Commerce Clause.
 
It's a bit too late for that... and if there's one area in which we do need federal encroachment, it's the arena of silly state weapons laws.
 
Thanks for the merge of the threads, guess I should have done a search first. I personally support this for the reason of I want the recognition of my permit in any state I happen to travel in, and or move to. Few people live in the same state their whole life anymore and it would be a shame if I had to move into a state that didn't observe my permit to carry a deadly weapon sense they do observe my permit to drive one. I could go into many other examples. I also think this will help to move the ball forward on those states that are anti CCW. I also doubt this will pass being an election year and all but getting the word out and letting our reps know how we feel never hurts.
 
It's a bit too late for that... and if there's one area in which we do need federal encroachment, it's the arena of silly state weapons laws.
Click to expand...

The Bill of rights is supposed to apply to the the Federal government not the states (14th Amendment changed that unfortunately....and it could be debated that it wasn't legally passed, but that's a thread for another forum) otherwise it wouldn't just say "Congress shall not pass...." in them. That's why 9 out of the original 13 states had Established churches well into the 19th century. The 2cond amendment means that the Federal government cannot take steps to disarm people because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The states adopt similar constitutions protecting such rights within their own borders. It is the job of the individual states to sort out these things themselves. If Kalifornia chooses not to allow this Texan to carry there, that is wrong, but that is something Kalifornians need to work out themselves. I don't want the Feds jumping in. If they do, what is to stop them from jumping in and enforcing pro abortion legislation if my state chooses to outlaw abortion for instance? I don't want a Hobbsian centralized government deciding what we should or should not do.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, tyme. Because I don't believe it is too late to roll back (curb) Federal power.

Malfadr13, if you did a search on your state laws, as regards drivers licenses, you would find that your state recognizes my states license because of a reciprocal compact made way back when. The feds were never involved.

What the individual states are doing with the various reciprocity agreements, are exactly what happened with drivers licenses. It finally got to the point that a "universal" compact was made and all states signed on to it. It took time. Just as it is taking time for recognition of our CCW's.

IIRC, in 2000, Idaho recognized all other states permits, but only 3 other states (Alaska, Montana and Wyoming) recognized ours. Now that number is up to 22. Pretty good progress, I'd say.

If we have to have some kind of Federal policy, then incorporate the 2nd into the 14th. But not by way of the abused Commerce Clause.
 
It is the job of the individual states to sort out these things themselves.
Click to expand...
Ideally, yes. In practice, as you pointed out, we have the fourteenth amendment, and it's fortunate we do because quite a number of States have caught the statism disease. I think just about everyone has a love-hate relationship with the 14th amendment, but states are violating so many basic rights these days that I have difficulty believing the founders would abide them.
If Kalifornia chooses not to allow this Texan to carry there, that is wrong, but that is something Kalifornians need to work out themselves.
Click to expand...
Which isn't fair to someone who doesn't live in California but wants to visit. States are not supposed to be sovereign territories that can pass whatever laws they want. We're not supposed to feel like foreigners when we cross a a state line. There is supposed to be freedom of travel and commerce between states, and state laws restricting weapon carry and ownership impede both travel and commerce.
I don't want the Feds jumping in. If they do, what is to stop them from jumping in and enforcing pro abortion legislation if my state chooses to outlaw abortion for instance?
Click to expand...
If they don't jump in, what's to stop them from passing pro-abortion legislation? Nothing. The SCOTUS has no spine. You think Alito or Thomas is going to jump up and say, "well gosh, Congress didn't pass national ccw reciprocity, so that means they're taking the interstate commerce clause seriously again?" Look at Thomas's dissent in the Oregon assisted suicide case. He's resigned to the fact that the SCOTUS has given Congress carte blanche with respect to the ICC. I don't think he'll even bother to continue his dissents in interstate commerce clause abuses. I think he might resort to writing sarcastic concurring opinions based on Raich, satisfying himself with jabs at the majority in his footnotes.
I don't want a Hobbsian centralized government deciding what we should or should not do.
Click to expand...
It doesn't tell you what you should or shouldn't do. It gives you, as a visitor to a state, the option, should you choose to accept it, of carrying in the manner that the state's residents can carry, and prevents you from becoming a criminal if the state you're visiting doesn't allow concealed carry.

I think this legislation is one of the least offensive commerce clause abuses imaginable. Unlike 99% of commerce clause legislation, this bill doesn't create any federal licensing scheme, and doesn't require any federal effort to implement or administrate. It partially prevents states from interfering with an enumerated federal right. Is that really so wrong?

The only reason the ICC is used as justification is that Congressman Stearns knows perfectly well that, with any other stated justification, the bill would be shot down by the federal courts. Do you object to the bill no matter what the justification, or do you think it would be constitutional if it cited the 2nd and 14th amendments in conjunction with the full faith and credit clause?

I think the federal government derailed a long time ago, but no one is volunteering to depose the federal government and construct a new one. This piece of legislation, practically speaking, seems like one of the best we're ever going to get. And for every minute Congress spends dealing with this bill, that's one minute they're not going to have to think up new pork-barrel projects or work on bills that truly are abusive to individual rights.
 
I agree with Antipitas on this one. We do not need any federal involvement in this. IMO, we already have to right to carry across state lines. Is called the 2nd amendment.
 
Wildcard said:
IMO, we already have to right to carry across state lines. Is called the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

OK, so travel to California (like I have to frequently), conceal your pistol, get caught with it (post SD shooting, printing, use your imagination) and see what happens.

1. Arrested and charged with misdemeanor (first time). Out on bail if you have some money.
2. In court, you claim 2nd Amendment. Judge has good laugh, convicts you anyway.
3. Fat fine, maybe jail time, but not much. Weeks spent on the side of a freeway picking up tampons and Big Mac wrappers.
4. You never see your pistol again.
5. Your home state pulls your permit for the conviction on something that would have been legal for you to do at home.

edited because I hit the wrong button

For your second offense, I believe it is now a felony. Judge doesn't laugh this time, you serve prison time, never see that gun again either. Oh yeah, you also lose all your 2nd Amendment rights permanently. It is a crime that some states can get away with crap like that, but it happens every day. I for one would much rather have national reciprocity - I am not a criminal, and don't want to become one by exercising my so-called rights. Nor do I want to get mugged on BART in Oakland at 10pm, like I almost did the last time I visited sunny California.
 
Wildcard, so you agree that the 2nd amendment applies to concealed carry, but you object to a federal law that smacks the states around because they're infringing on the 2A? Or do you object to the particulars of this bill (which I admit are less than ideal)?

Under HR 4547, it seems that a state could restrict carry in enough places that legal carry would be the exception rather than the rule. It's also unclear whether, if I have a TX permit and travel to FL, the 4547 clause forbidding carry of machineguns would take precedence over FL law (which allows carry of machineguns).

The bill (4547) isn't clear about whether, for instance, a Florida permit would allow a CA resident to carry in CA. The text of the law isn't specific as to residency vs non-residency, but the section heading explicitly states that the law deals with carry by non-residents.

The law also needs to deal with more than just guns. Knife carry is just as problematic, and there is no effort by most states to license carrying of "evil knives."
 
Is this another version of a law that would give extra-territoriality to a non-resident?

In other words, would this bill allow a Texan to carry in Wisconsin, even though a Cheesehead can't carry in Wisconsin.



If so, that's incredibly stupid. Pass a national carry law, or don't. Don't grant non-residents more priveledges than residents.
 
I think its a step in the right direction...Its amazing, a congressmen wants a 2nd amendment bill to pass, and a whole bunch of pro-gun guys don't like it. :rolleyes:
 
Most of us "pro gun guys" are "pro rights guys". If you pass a pro-gun bill that tramples some American's rights, you haven't served the aims of freedom.
 
+1 Handy

The other thing that may happen if this passes is the "uh-oh" plan:

State gubberment dude: Hey citizens, did you know that people from out of out state can come here armed and be all dangerous and stuff, and you can't?

"unwashed masses":uh-oh! um... we want guns now too

State gubberment dude: You elected me to keep those bad scary guns out of your hot little hands, you dont need them

"masses": uh-oh, can we change out minds with your new scare tactic?

State gubberment dude: Sure, I'll say anything to get voted for again, I'm a big idiot
 
We have the 14th amendment (regardless of whether or not it was properly ratified, it's here to stay). The principle of incorporation is written right into it ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"). It doesn't necessarily need a court to incorporate a right. The legislature can do it on its own (section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.").

So we could use the Full Faith and Credit Clause, coupled with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th and... Viola! Instant reciprocity. There is absolutely no need to rely upon the (already overly abused) Commerce Clause.

That, to my mind, would be the proper use of the Constitutional powers of the Congress.
 
As currently written in most states, CCLs are a priveledge, like a driver's license. I don't see how the 14th amendment applies.

Alaska hands out money every year to residents from oil revenues. Is that a priveledge that all states have to offer?


I had thought the 14th was there to insure that no state could take away a right granted at the Federal level. CCLs are neither federal, nor (as currently used) a right.
 
Antipitas said:
So we could use the Full Faith and Credit Clause, coupled with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th and... Viola! Instant reciprocity. There is absolutely no need to rely upon the (already overly abused) Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Like I said, try it and see where it gets you - you won't like it.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top