50 State CCW
- Thread starter billkrom
- Start date
EOD Guy in VA
New member
Here it is ...
HR 950 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 950
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 8, 2001
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. CANNON, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. SOUDER, and Mr. GIBBONS) 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 2001'.
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. 926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person 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 if that person--
`(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and
`(2)(A) is carrying a valid license or permit that is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or
`(B) is otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of a person's residence.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:
`926B. 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.
END
HR 950 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 950
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 8, 2001
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. CANNON, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. SOUDER, and Mr. GIBBONS) 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 2001'.
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. 926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person 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 if that person--
`(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and
`(2)(A) is carrying a valid license or permit that is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or
`(B) is otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of a person's residence.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:
`926B. 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.
END
HandgunShooter
New member
I think the regulation of fire arms really should be a state and local affair, not a federal affair.
Libertarian
New member
I wonder why more Reps aren't co-sponsors? It seems like a winner idea and doesn't involves the feds beyond passing the law.
aikidoka - mks
New member
Seems like a good idea but I'm willing to defer to libertarians and constitutionalists that are more knowledgeable than I am. I would like to be able to carry into Illinois. It is pretty stupid that I'm all of a sudden not qualified to carry a firearm just because I happened to drive a few miles in a particular direction.
Mark
Mark
There is no libertarian or constitutional issue.
Please support this bill. It's clearly constitutional as an enforcement of the full faith and credit clause. The only possible complaint is exception for state-defined "gun free" zones, but there's really no way to get rid of that without completely removing state sovereignity over issues regarding firearm carry.
This'll probably have to be reintroduced in the 108th congress to have a chance at getting passed.
Why would it? The bill provides for reciprocity depending on state law. If congress later determines that state laws requiring ccw licenses are unconstitutional, those laws are void and all states become like Vermont. If you'll notice, Section 926B (2)(B) specifically deals with VT-style states, so there's no issue.
Please support this bill. It's clearly constitutional as an enforcement of the full faith and credit clause. The only possible complaint is exception for state-defined "gun free" zones, but there's really no way to get rid of that without completely removing state sovereignity over issues regarding firearm carry.
This'll probably have to be reintroduced in the 108th congress to have a chance at getting passed.
This SHOULD be much ado about nothing. Compare the flurry of laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. They're doing that so they don't have to recognize the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states. Why would they have to in the absence of their poison pill amendments?
Simple. That wildly UNenforced 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which pretty much says that a Indiana driver's license is good in Texas, etc. If Indiana figures that CCW is legal as long as a licensee meets its qualifications, Texas pretty much has to accept the validity of a an Indiana CCW permit since it has nominally similar laws for licensing concealed handguns.
However, if New Jersey's constitution does not specifically prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, but its laws simply mean that only SOME people in NJ are authorized to carry, then is an Indiana CHP good in NJ under the 14th Amendment, especially if Indiana's licensing requirements for training, proving skill, etc., are at least as demanding as NJ's? I would argue that it is, and this bill would settle the question to the dismay of the pooh bahs in NJ.
That would be a good step, especially since NJ, Kali, and the other PRs would have to amend their constitutions to prohibit CCWs across the board instead of leaving the application of their laws prohibiting CCW arbitrary and sometimes capricious.
Support the bill....
Simple. That wildly UNenforced 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which pretty much says that a Indiana driver's license is good in Texas, etc. If Indiana figures that CCW is legal as long as a licensee meets its qualifications, Texas pretty much has to accept the validity of a an Indiana CCW permit since it has nominally similar laws for licensing concealed handguns.
However, if New Jersey's constitution does not specifically prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, but its laws simply mean that only SOME people in NJ are authorized to carry, then is an Indiana CHP good in NJ under the 14th Amendment, especially if Indiana's licensing requirements for training, proving skill, etc., are at least as demanding as NJ's? I would argue that it is, and this bill would settle the question to the dismay of the pooh bahs in NJ.
That would be a good step, especially since NJ, Kali, and the other PRs would have to amend their constitutions to prohibit CCWs across the board instead of leaving the application of their laws prohibiting CCW arbitrary and sometimes capricious.
Support the bill....
Hmmm, Blackhawk, are you sure you don't mean "full faith and credit clause" in your analogies supra??? The 14th Amendment, incorporating the Second (or Ninth), would render concerns for "CCWs", whatever those are down yonder, moot as citizens could, in the words of Chief Justice Taney, "carry arms wherever they go"!
, moot as citizens could, in the words of Chief Justice Taney, "carry arms wherever they go"!It appears that this would, in essence be a national CCW. People in states like CA, NY and NJ could acquire a CCW from a state like Florida, which gives them to any qualified US citizen. They could then carry in their home state following the same restrictions as the state elite follows with their homegrown CCW.
hk, it specifies state of residence, so you have to at least maintain a residence in a given state to claim the right to carry based on that state's laws. Otherwise everyone could claim carry rights under VT law and license-based CCW would go away. It might be interesting to try to sneak in a change to that effect.
links for those who haven't read them:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00514:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00950:
links for those who haven't read them:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00514:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00950:
Reality check for just one moment please. Roadblock to reciprocity has always been standards. One state will not acknowledge another state's CCW because they feel that the qualifications for obtaining a concealed weapons permit for that state is lesser than their own and neither state ends up signing a reciprocity agreement. Problems with the dos and don't of conceal carry that vary from state to state have also been issues brought up during negotiations. Without minimum standards, it will not gain support. No sense in wasting time on a dog that won't hunt.
Tyme, that's what I meant. A resident of CA could get a FL CCW. While in CA, he could then carry concealed guided by the same restrictions that a person/politician/movie star/etc. with a CA CCW had to follow.
I don't give this one much hope though. Some LEO organizations have been trying for years to allow sworn officers to carry concealed anywhere in the US. If they won't go for it with cops, they won't go for it with us either.
I don't give this one much hope though. Some LEO organizations have been trying for years to allow sworn officers to carry concealed anywhere in the US. If they won't go for it with cops, they won't go for it with us either.