SAFE ACT: National CCW Reciprocity ACTION NEEDED

A

Aquaholic

New member
From another board:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=405139

Short story:
A bill is being introduced to allow anyone having a permit in any state (and those with no permit from Alaska-style states) to carry in any state in the U.S. of A.

Worthy of an email or phone call, don't you think?

The details (but the whole forum thread is worth reading, IMO):


Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1243 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1243
To amend title 18 of the 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

March 10, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. HALL, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANNON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. OTTER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SODREL, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 18 of the 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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. 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:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm , and is--

`(1) 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 ; or

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, 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.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 
Absurd. I support the bill in practice (as a step in the right direction), but in principle I have to object. If Vermont and Alaska residents can be trusted to carry everywhere without a permit, everyone should be trusted to carry everywhere without a permit. The sponsors' hearts are in the right place, but like most politicians their reasoning abilities are sorely lacking.

I don't buy the federalism argument for why it has to be this way. I don't think there's a single area where federalism grants the federal government the power to force States to grant exceptions to their laws in this way. If this bill is passed, it seems like it would have to be a measure to protect the 2nd amendment. Given that, there's no reason to mess around with differentiating states that grant permits from states that don't. Let everyone carry.

The list of places that can be made off-limits should be limited federally. The only possible restricted areas should be bars & clubs (alcohol) and courthouses. I don't like either of those restrictions, but federal preemption of courthouse firearm bans is a political non-starter... and preemption of firearms bans in bars and clubs is probably a close second.
 
Well, Tyme, your point is well-taken. But in the meantime, this sounds like a very important step in that direction.


Now, as far as this is concerned:

"may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, 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."


Um, would that mean that a person whose license is issued by Texas would be prohibited from carrying in a church in Florida, even though the Florida law does not prohibit carry in church? (Assuming that it's still the case in Texas that you can't carry in church -- or at some time in the past it was that way, right?)

I'd want clarification on this. If Florida says I can't carry at a pro sports event, but Alabama does not (just for example's sake; I don't know if that's true or not), would I be under the Florida restriction even if I were in Alabama? It sounds like we'd be under the more restrictive of the sets of rules, whether that's from the state you come from or the state you're visiting.


-blackmind
 
"may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence,"
Click to expand...
Means that you are limited to carrying what your license or state law says you can carry.
"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."
Click to expand...
Means that you can only carry in the designated areas of the state in which you find yourself.

You know, it's been so long, that most people simply don't know. But drivers licenses are valid in every state, not because of some federal law, but because each state reciprocated with the other states. The same exact way states are reprocating CCW today.

Why get the feds involved at all? So you can go to CA. and essentially violate their law? (they don't reciprocate with anyone)

Look, even in gun friendly Idaho, in order to comply with the new peace officer national concealed carry, our legislature had to make some changes in our own CWP law just to accommodate the fed law. It's a more restrictive and costlier CWP than civilians get. Plus, they have to renew the license and requal every year as opposed to renewing every 4 years and no requals for a normal license.

Of course, I used my DD214 to qualify! :D
 
I thought it was because of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

Otherwise, when does that clause come into play? Is it there to be ornamental or something?


I don't read that first part the way you do. When it says, "may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence," I take that to mean "you can carry a gun in accordance with the terms set forth in your state for carrying a gun." That means, to me, not "which gun you can carry," but "the circumstances of the way you can carry it." You seem to be saying that it's about "what" you can carry... I disagree on whether it actually makes that clear.


-blackmind
 
Every state allows driving. The reciprocity is defacto, not a mandate from the fed.


You can't blather on about the Constitution, then turn around and take a dump on the rights of the states to not have to honor the laws passed in OTHER states. That's absolutely absurd and creates all sorts of stupid possibilities.


If you live in a right on red state, that doesn't mean that your driver's license allows you to turn right on red in a state where that is illegal. But this bill suggests that I take my VA CCW into WI and practice a priveledge that the CITIZENS of the state can't?!! STUPID!!!

Want national CCW? Pass a national CCW license bill. But this trainwreck is definitely NOT a step in the right direction.
 
Maybe we're so jaded about our Second Amendment rights being tromped on for so long, that we are willing to be happy even with a sort of Pyrrhic victory as this would be. Think of the antis: do you think they really relish the idea of having to try to take down gun rights via absurdist lawsuits that clearly and unmistakably seek to hold the blameless to blame? They're doing it out of desperation. (Well, I mean, not no more... but they were...)

And we are seeking this as a sort of bite-our-nose-to-spite-our-face-and-get-what-we-want-in-a-backhanded-way move. I guess.

But in truth, I do see it less as an intrusion on states' rights as it is an assertion of what should have been our 2nd Amendment right all along -- to BEAR ARMS. No matter where we decide to be.


-blackmind
 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/#annotations
FF&C primarily applies to recognition of contracts and judicial orders. I'm sure its potential application to criminal law could be the subject of a fascinating book, but I doubt many courts would accept a FF&C argument for interstate recognition of a piece of paper granting partial exemption from one state's criminal laws. Maybe it would have some application in VA... aren't VA permits issued by courts?

Handy, maybe it ought to be a federal mandate. For firearm carry, it would be of the form, "States shall not disrespect the 2nd amendment by restricting concealed carry, except... (stuff about courthouses, bars, etc.)" Do you believe the federal government doesn't have the power to pass such a law? I believe it does, under the 2nd and 14th amendments.

I think there could be a similar federal mandate for drivers licenses by incorporating the common law right to travel under the 14th amendment. But perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the right to travel is a privilege of U.S. citizens. Perhaps the states can forbid travel on public land, or at least require papers from anyone who dares to travel.

I don't want to hear, "the 14th amendment doesn't really mean that... the only privileges and immunities it protects are the ones that have already been incorporated." I think it's pretty clear that accepted rights enumerated by the constitution or in common law ought to have been incorporated without fuss a long time ago. If you want to marginalize the 14th amendment, argue that its forced ratification was invalid, or that it invalidates the Constitution by taking away too much power from the states and giving too much positive-rights-enforcement power to the Feds, thus breaking the balance of federalism.
 
Tyme,

I would be pleased if all states CHOSE to honor all other states CCW. That is entirely different than a federal law telling them they had to.

I don't see why you couldn't have a national CCW. There are other federal licences - I have one that allows me to pilot commercial aircraft in every state.
 
I like the idea, but don't suport the bill.

I, too, would rather see all states recriporcate. I don't like when the feds say all states must do X, or Y will happen.

Plus, it is kinda stupid that you must follow the rules of your state of issuance, not the laws of whatever state you are in. Kinda like saying that someone from Montana can do 75 on an Ohio interstate, when the Ohio residents must do the posted 65.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top