National Reciprocity part Deux
- Thread starter swinokur
- Start date
yup three votes in the senate. a lot has changed since November. Many blue dog democrats have seen their careers in jeopardy and may change their vote. Voting for it won't hurt them at all IMO. Independents are more 2A friendly than the uber left.
Failing to vote for this may put them in serious jeopardy and they know it.
fingers crossed
Failing to vote for this may put them in serious jeopardy and they know it.
fingers crossed
If the bill is attached to another bill like the NPS carry law was attached to the Credit Card reform Act it has a chance of being signed by POTUS. Depends how badly he wants the other bill. He didn't want CCW in National Parks either but he wanted the credit card bill more. He signed that.
I'm gonna stay positive.
I'm gonna stay positive.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Doesn't look too bad. Too bad it's necessary, though.
It won't affect Utah as much as Florida, though, if Utah goes ahead with the proposed change that they'll only issue non-resident permits to people with a permit from their home state. That's going to reduce the pool of "buyers" considerably.
It won't affect Utah as much as Florida, though, if Utah goes ahead with the proposed change that they'll only issue non-resident permits to people with a permit from their home state. That's going to reduce the pool of "buyers" considerably.
silentargus
New member
Fantastic... here's hoping it passes. If it does, the first thing I'm doing when it takes effect is tucking in my Colt and taking a nice stroll up and down the street.
This is national reciprocity that even I can get behind!
I really hope this passes. Everyone, and I do mean all of us, should immediately send all our Representatives and Senators an email, asking for support.
This is precisely what is needed to slap the Supreme Court upside their head with the Slaughterhouse Cases.
This law also does something else. It helps every case out there that is looking to push the holdout States into shall Issue. How? Look at legislative finding, point #4: The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
The right to carry arms... If the legislature meant only in the home, or only on your own property, they would have said so. They didn't. Not in their findings (legislative intent) and most certainly not within the law itself.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.
Note that this bill does not use the Commerce Clause for justification of the law. It enacts legislation pursuant to the 5th clause of the 14th amendment: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.
I really hope this passes. Everyone, and I do mean all of us, should immediately send all our Representatives and Senators an email, asking for support.
This is precisely what is needed to slap the Supreme Court upside their head with the Slaughterhouse Cases.
This law also does something else. It helps every case out there that is looking to push the holdout States into shall Issue. How? Look at legislative finding, point #4: The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
The right to carry arms... If the legislature meant only in the home, or only on your own property, they would have said so. They didn't. Not in their findings (legislative intent) and most certainly not within the law itself.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I am basically apolitical, and I don't belong to any party, but I will acknowledge that we can thank the new Republican leadership for this. They have decreed that ALL new laws must include a statement of Constitutional authority (or something like that). In other words, no more passing laws that are contrary to the Constitution and hoping nobody can afford to challenge them.
This follows the new pattern. It states the Constitutional basis at the outset.
What a novel idea -- making laws that fall within the parameters established by the Constitution.
This follows the new pattern. It states the Constitutional basis at the outset.
What a novel idea -- making laws that fall within the parameters established by the Constitution.
This law has been very carefully crafted. Of all the 2A cases before the various courts, there is only 1 case that the law, if passed, will moot.
Gray Peterson (Peterson v. LaCabe) has already said he won't mind, as his case seeks to do just what this law will accomplish.
Add to this, that it will put tremendous pressure on those States that are "May Issue." Imagine having all those out of State vacationers being able to CC when the residents can't (Can you just see Mayor Bloomberg's face?).
Gray Peterson (Peterson v. LaCabe) has already said he won't mind, as his case seeks to do just what this law will accomplish.
Add to this, that it will put tremendous pressure on those States that are "May Issue." Imagine having all those out of State vacationers being able to CC when the residents can't (Can you just see Mayor Bloomberg's face?).
youngunz4life
New member
skeptical yet hopeful
Al, that is what I was going to ask.
Even though HI and NJ as examples are difficult to obtain CCWs in, the law would allow visitors to carry since they have a CCW in their home state, right? On the flip side, IL and WI as examples would still be off limits completely since they do not offer CCW at all, correct?
I know some people see the negatives sometimes, but in my opinion National CCW makes sense and is just less complicated in so many ways. As people have pointed out in the past, the LEOs who finally attained LEOSA in 2004 had vowed to get National CCW to the average citizen asap in return.
Al, that is what I was going to ask.
Even though HI and NJ as examples are difficult to obtain CCWs in, the law would allow visitors to carry since they have a CCW in their home state, right? On the flip side, IL and WI as examples would still be off limits completely since they do not offer CCW at all, correct?
I know some people see the negatives sometimes, but in my opinion National CCW makes sense and is just less complicated in so many ways. As people have pointed out in the past, the LEOs who finally attained LEOSA in 2004 had vowed to get National CCW to the average citizen asap in return.
That's what worries me. What are the chances that states like Hawaii and New Jersey will simply pull the plug completely on issuing permits so they can not be forced to honor all those horrid out-of-staters carrying on their Florida and Indian permits?
...or would that be a door to another court challenge of its own in those states?
maestro pistolero
New member
In the end, we have to believe that the 2A will require states to decide how, but not whether a non-prohibited person can carry. HI, WI, and others will eventually have to create some un-burdensome path to legal carry, otherwise what's the second amendment all about in the first place?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
To do that, they would have to completely remove the permit provisions from their statutes. That means no more concealed carry even for the rich and famous, and the politically-connected. It's a possibility, but perhaps unlikely that they would do that.Tom Servo said:
But that is the one flaw with this bill. All the arguments in the "Findings" section pertain equally to the states that don't allow any concealed carry at all, so why doesn't the law cover them, too?
But -- right now my home state permit covers one state. 48 is better than one. If Hawaii pulls the plug on concealed carry entirely -- it's unlikely I would ever go there anyway, so I won't cry in my beer over it. New Jersey would be more problematic, because the NJ Turnpike is the major route into and out of New England, and my sister lives in New Hampshire. But, there are routes to minimize time spent in NJ, and even bypass it entirely.
youngunz4life
New member
I believe the only states offlimits if it passes would be WI & IL due to their CCW state ban. Tom, it should be better either way. I hear its virtually impossible to attain a CCW in HI anyways. Pretty much yeah, those states will have to update their laws(the first one being where legal CCWs can and cannot carry since more will have CCW and their past strategy was to barely offer the CCW in the first place).
It should go without saying, that you have to read the bill carefully, to understand what the proposed law would do.
Luckily, H.R. 822 is short. It modifies only one section of the law. Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 by adding § 926D.
Putting it all together then:
A resident of CA, NJ, MD, HI (for example), who realistically cannot obtain a carry permit in their home State, even though the permits exist, but who otherwise could carry, can use a non-resident permit and carry in the other 47 States.
While the residents of Illinois and Wisconsin cannot carry (no permit whatsoever) in their home States, they can obtain a non-resident permit and carry everywhere else.
All that is required is 1) a government issued ID with a photograph and 2) a valid carry permit issued by a State. The ID and the Permit do not have to be issued by the same States.
It looks as if WI will join the rest of us this year and have a permitting process or perhaps (speculation) even go straight to what's being called, "Constitutional Carry." That leaves only Il to deal with.
In the other, more restrictive "May Issue" States, the political pressure will become enormous, as more and more visitors carry concealed and blood does not run. This law will even help the current cases in these States, as it levels the playing field by having the Congress declare your right to carry, a fundamental right as a citizen of the U.S. via the 14th amendment.
Could the Congress have worded this to allow everyone this right? Yes. It still may, as we don't know what Sen. Thune has in the wings on the Senate side. His bill has yet to be seen.
I foresee the House passing this as a stand-alone bill (that the current President would surely veto), and the Thune bill being submitted as an amendment to a bill the President must sign. What will matter is what is in the Thune bill. Such a two pronged attack, will leave the President without much choice.
There is lots to hope for here, with what is being played out.
Luckily, H.R. 822 is short. It modifies only one section of the law. Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 by adding § 926D.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
The above states that if you are not a prohibited person and if you have a government ID (with a photograph) and you have a valid CCW permit issued by a State authority, you may carry concealed in any State, other than your home State, as long as...(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
The State you are in has a permitting process...(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
This means that Illinois and Wisconsin are the only States that you won't be able to carry in...(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
You will be subject to the same laws as a State citizen who has a permit...(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted
license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
In States that have permits with restrictions, you will be subject to the least restrictive permit that the State issues...license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.
Other than the above, this law will not affect any other State laws.Putting it all together then:
A resident of CA, NJ, MD, HI (for example), who realistically cannot obtain a carry permit in their home State, even though the permits exist, but who otherwise could carry, can use a non-resident permit and carry in the other 47 States.
While the residents of Illinois and Wisconsin cannot carry (no permit whatsoever) in their home States, they can obtain a non-resident permit and carry everywhere else.
All that is required is 1) a government issued ID with a photograph and 2) a valid carry permit issued by a State. The ID and the Permit do not have to be issued by the same States.
It looks as if WI will join the rest of us this year and have a permitting process or perhaps (speculation) even go straight to what's being called, "Constitutional Carry." That leaves only Il to deal with.
In the other, more restrictive "May Issue" States, the political pressure will become enormous, as more and more visitors carry concealed and blood does not run. This law will even help the current cases in these States, as it levels the playing field by having the Congress declare your right to carry, a fundamental right as a citizen of the U.S. via the 14th amendment.
Could the Congress have worded this to allow everyone this right? Yes. It still may, as we don't know what Sen. Thune has in the wings on the Senate side. His bill has yet to be seen.
I foresee the House passing this as a stand-alone bill (that the current President would surely veto), and the Thune bill being submitted as an amendment to a bill the President must sign. What will matter is what is in the Thune bill. Such a two pronged attack, will leave the President without much choice.
There is lots to hope for here, with what is being played out.
Which is ironic in a way. In permissive states, it's easy to get a permit, but there are many places off-limits, such as churches and bars. In restrictive states like California, it's harder to get a permit, but once you do, there are very few restrictions on where you can carry.
So, if I go to California with my Georgia permit, I can carry in places there that I couldn't back home.
My guess is that it'll get attached to a budget-ceiling bill. It worked for national park carry.
Actually, Wisconsin is very likely to change in the near future. What's interesting is the body of caselaw they've built there, which supports the idea that it is unconstitutional to deny CCW. The Hamdan and Schultz cases have already built some compelling arguments on the subject.
HR 822 is more solid than the 2009 Thune Amendment for being built on the wording of the 14th Amendment, and an attempt to circumvent it to avoid compliance would be much more difficult for a state to defend in court. In this post-McDonald world, it'll be much harder for a state to weasel out.
maestro pistolero
New member
They could do it today with impunity! Constitutional carry would not require any funding, so they could pass it today without a quorum.
I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalization, Tom. Utah is generally considered a "permissive" state yet I can legally carry in public schools (elementary through university), bars, public transportation (buses, light and commuter rail, etc.), non-secure portion of an airport, churches (unless specific legally-defined steps are taken by the church to restrict carry), sporting and entertainment venues, polling places, state and local government buildings, hospitals, and the list goes on.Tom Servo said:
I'll certainly concede, though, that some "permissive" states can be restrictive on where carry is allowed.