House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[The Legion]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concealed-carry-reciprocity

 

Dec. 6 2017

Fairfax, Va.—The National Rifle Association applauded the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday for passing the most far-reaching expansion of self-defense rights in modern American history. the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 passed with bipartisan support in a 231-198 vote.

“This vote marks a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is the culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines.”

The bill, H.R. 38, ensures that those Americans who can legally carry a concealed firearm in one state will legally be able to do so in every other state. It eliminates the confusing patchwork of state laws that have ensnared otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and have forced law enforcement to waste their precious time and resources enforcing laws that don’t do anything to reduce violent crime. 

The bill also makes improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. All Americans, including law-abiding gun owners, agree that violent criminals should not have legal access to firearms. However, the system is only as good as its records, and recent events have shown that sometimes the correct information is not entered into the system. This bill incentivizes states and government agencies to update the NICS with legitimate records of prohibited persons.

Additionally, the bill creates an expedited process for removing records that are erroneously put in the system. Currently, when a person discovers they have been wrongly added to the NICS, it can take up to a year to get their name removed. This bill requires a response to an appeal within 60 days.

“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law.  We now call on the Senate to take up and pass this critical legislation,” Cox concluded.

The National Rifle Association would especially like to thank Rep. Richard Hudson, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise for their extraordinary efforts to pass this important legislation.  

[Chucktshoes]

This is not a positive long term development. 

[bersaguy]

Well, as I mentioned earlier in another thread. The rush by all the people to get the bill on the floor it will get stuck in the Senate till at least the year 20/20 or later and then if politics change in the 2018 election it can be killed if anything changes in the Senate or House..............Not holding my breath on it but does not really effect me as it will some others because I don't plan on leaving Tennessee to go to any other state...............JMHO

[gregintenn]

Scares the hell outta me.

[Raoul]

The beginning of federal gun control affecting gun owners in all state's. Bad business.

[Garufa]

4 minutes ago, Raoul said:

The beginning of federal gun control affecting gun owners in all state's. Bad business.

That’s exactly what it is and so many gun owners of the carrying kind have taken it hook, line, and sinker.  

[Worriedman]

22 hours ago, bersaguy said:

Well, as I mentioned earlier in another thread. The rush by all the people to get the bill on the floor it will get stuck in the Senate till at least the year 20/20 or later and then if politics change in the 2018 election it can be killed if anything changes in the Senate or House..............Not holding my breath on it but does not really effect me as it will some others because I don't plan on leaving Tennessee to go to any other state...............JMHO

Better hope so!

 

[DL126]

Click me

[espacef1fan]

Thoughts?

 

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/whos-afraid-big-bad-fix-nics/#axzz50hyZ2J1P

[bersaguy]

This topic was brought up on Fox News last night and I listened to what the people discussing it said and evidently this is a 2 part bill that was passed in the House but it was said by about three different people asked what they thought and all three said when it reaches the Senate it will be split into 2 seperate bills and voted on 1 at a time. Now since I am not all that smart maybe someone here can better explain what the 2 parts of this bill are. Like I said, I don't plan on leaving the state but I am sure many here do travel to other states and would like to carry while doing so.

Now with that said, even if they do pass 1 or both in the Senate and Trump signs it does that really mean many of the states like NJ , NY, Mass, Maine, Illinois, California and other will abide by it. NJ has already said you will be arrested in their state if your armed from out of state. Yea you may win in court but is it worth the cost of legal fees to fight it if you do get arrested?.............JMHO 

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, bersaguy said:

This topic was brought up on Fox News last night and I listened to what the people discussing it said and evidently this is a 2 part bill that was passed in the House but it was said by about three different people asked what they thought and all three said when it reaches the Senate it will be split into 2 seperate bills and voted on 1 at a time. Now since I am not all that smart maybe someone here can better explain what the 2 parts of this bill are. Like I said, I don't plan on leaving the state but I am sure many here do travel to other states and would like to carry while doing so.

Now with that said, even if they do pass 1 or both in the Senate and Trump signs it does that really mean many of the states like NJ , NY, Mass, Maine, Illinois, California and other will abide by it. NJ has already said you will be arrested in their state if your armed from out of state. Yea you may win in court but is it worth the cost of legal fees to fight it if you do get arrested?.............JMHO 

I don’t see this playing out anytime soon. The SCOTUS has split the 2nd into two parts.. Keep and Bear. They have ruled all Americans have the right to KEEP arms, but they have not yet ruled that all Americans can strap on a gun and walk down the street; I doubt they will. They have indicated that States Rights allow reasonable restrictions; although I don’t think they have ruled that.

They have refused to hear challenges to states banning open carry and states banning AR’s as assault weapons. So those bans stand for now.

The only way I see Federal carry going forward is a Federal Carry Permit. Good luck getting the states to agree on the background check, the training and on what you can carry.

[bersaguy]

2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t see this playing out anytime soon. The SCOTUS has split the 2nd into two parts.. Keep and Bear. They have ruled all Americans have the right to KEEP arms, but they have not yet ruled that all Americans can strap on a gun and walk down the street; I doubt they will. They have indicated that States Rights allow reasonable restrictions; although I don’t think they have ruled that.

They have refused to hear challenges to states banning open carry and states banning AR’s as assault weapons. So those bans stand for now.

The only way I see Federal carry going forward is a Federal Carry Permit. Good luck getting the states to agree on the background check, the training and on what you can carry.

I'm guessing your 100% correct. I would bet the Supreme Court is going to leave it up to each state to make their own laws regarding who can carry in their state which in many ways is probably the best way to do it. That way if people want to get the laws changed in that state they can do it at the voting booths in that state...........JMHO. I am happy with almost all of the laws in Tennessee except they need to do something about the Gun Buster signs but I don't ever see that happening because that is telling a business owner how to operate his or her business. I have just quit doing business with any wearing the signs cause there is another business down the road that does not have signs that sells to same items................

[espacef1fan]

It would be nice to make carry possible in states where hey are being denied the right. Even if it was only for a little while so studies could be done and they could prove that crime doesnt increase so repealing the ability to carry is simply emotional

 

[bersaguy]

28 minutes ago, espacef1fan said:

It would be nice to make carry possible in states where hey are being denied the right. Even if it was only for a little while so studies could be done and they could prove that crime doesnt increase so repealing the ability to carry is simply emotional

 

If you look at the states that are the most against guns period they are all mostly controlled by Democrats. You will be hard pressed to find a red state that is against guns as much as any blue state. For the most part it seems to be just a control issue more than a gun issue. Illinois has some of the most strict laws in the country and has one of the largest crime rate related to guns and all they do is blame surrounding states for selling guns to Illinois residents which any one with any sense can see through that smoke screen. In many ways I think Chicago does not do anything about the gun issue in Chicago so they can use it as a crutch for the entire state.

I lived in that state back in the 50's and mid 60's and at the age of 12 I legally bought my first hand gun and already owned several shotguns for hunting. I still have a friend I grew up with that still lives up there and he has told me you have to jump through HOOPS every year just to be able to buy a hunting license. He said it is almost like a back ground check to purchase a long gun. I'm sure glad my folks moved me back to my mothers home here in Tennessee when they did.

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, bersaguy said:

Illinois has some of the most strict laws in the country and has one of the largest crime rate related to guns and all they do is blame surrounding states for selling guns to Illinois residents which any one with any sense can see through that smoke screen. In many ways I think Chicago does not do anything about the gun issue in Chicago so they can use it as a crutch for the entire state.

If you are implying that gun laws directly impact crime compare the crime statistics of Chicago and Memphis; adjust for population.

[bersaguy]

43 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

If you are implying that gun laws directly impact crime compare the crime statistics of Chicago and Memphis; adjust for population.

I'm not to smart as I have said before about some things and I am trying to make sense of what your statement means. Make it a little easier on a not so smart old man please!

[Garufa]

43 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I'm not to smart as I have said before about some things and I am trying to make sense of what your statement means. Make it a little easier on a not so smart old man please!

What Dave is saying is that Memphis actually has a higher murder and perhaps violent crime rate than Chicago.  Crime stats are analyzed by looking at the number of crimes compared to the total population of a jurisdiction.  The resulting “rate” is x number per 100,000 people.

While Chicago is over three times bigger than the City of Memphis and has astronomical amounts of shootings and murders, if you look at it in terms of how many of those crimes occurred in relation to the number of people there, Memphis is worse.

Here is a google search for “Memphis vs Chicago crime”.   https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=MHYsWv-HB4HXmQHopq7oAQ&q=memphis+vs+chicago+crime&oq=memphis+vs+chi&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0l2j0i22i30k1l5.1534.4577.0.7961.14.10.0.4.4.0.191.831.6j2.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.12.907...0i131k1.0.pcaYM-EzDCU

Chicago and Illinois have some of the most restrictive gun laws in th country.  Memphis has the same gun laws as any other place in Tennessee.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Garufa

[bersaguy]

13 minutes ago, Garufa said:

What Dave is saying is that Memphis actually has a higher murder and perhaps violent crime rate than Chicago.  Crime stats are analyzed by looking at the number of crimes compared to the total population of a jurisdiction.  The resulting “rate” is x number per 100,000 people.

While Chicago is over three times bigger than the City of Memphis and has astronomical amounts of shootings and murders, if you look at it in terms of how many of those crimes occurred in relation to the number of people there, Memphis is worse.

Here is a google search for “Memphis vs Chicago crime”.   https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=MHYsWv-HB4HXmQHopq7oAQ&q=memphis+vs+chicago+crime&oq=memphis+vs+chi&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0l2j0i22i30k1l5.1534.4577.0.7961.14.10.0.4.4.0.191.831.6j2.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.12.907...0i131k1.0.pcaYM-EzDCU

Chicago and Illinois have some of the most restrictive gun laws in th country.  Memphis has the same gun laws as any other place in Tennessee.

Ok, that I can understand. So Memphis actually has more murders than Chicago yet Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country which tells me what good are laws when you have a populace that does not fear the police or obey the laws. It does not put a lot of support behind anti gun people with a record like Illinois has with the laws. It also says alot about Memphis but then again doing a little googling of my own many of the shootings that take place are in West Memphis Arkansas and not in Tennessee. Probably does not mean anything and all considered as Memphis Tennessee in crime stats.

[DaveTN]

12 hours ago, bersaguy said:

Ok, that I can understand. So Memphis actually has more murders than Chicago yet Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country which tells me what good are laws when you have a populace that does not fear the police or obey the laws. It does not put a lot of support behind anti gun people with a record like Illinois has with the laws. It also says alot about Memphis but then again doing a little googling of my own many of the shootings that take place are in West Memphis Arkansas and not in Tennessee. Probably does not mean anything and all considered as Memphis Tennessee in crime stats.

Yes, what Garufa said is what I was saying. But first let me say that you can usually make statistics show whatever you like.

Prior to Illinois getting handgun carry; one city had people legally carrying guns and in one city handgun carry was illegal. You can argue all day long about which city has the highest crime rates; but the fact is they both have very high crime rates. Illinois now has handgun carry and little has changed. The anti-gun people would like everyone to believe the current murder rate is because of handgun carry; that is ridiculous. It’s just as ridiculous to claim carry reduces the crime rates. Carry has little impact on crime one way or the other.

Both of those cities have high crime rates because of the gangs and the criminals. It’s as simple as that.

I’m sure West Memphis, AR crime stats are not included in Memphis, TN crime stats, just as East Chicago, IN and Gary IN are not included in Chicago, IL stats.

[owejia]

The flaw in your argument DaveTn is the the difference between legal and illegal carry. Illegal carry has a hugh impact on gun crime statistics. Legal carry citizens have a lower crime rate than law enforcement, so all the studies I have read say. If those gang members and criminals quite carrying illegally, gun crime would go down drastically . They would still find ways to kill each other but with different weapons of choice. You cannot take crime out of criminals, the only recourse is to punish them. Rehibliation does not work very well, as has been proven over time.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, owejia said:

The flaw in your argument DaveTn is the the difference between legal and illegal carry. Illegal carry has a hugh impact on gun crime statistics. Legal carry citizens have a lower crime rate than law enforcement, so all the studies I have read say. If those gang members and criminals quite carrying illegally, gun crime would go down drastically . They would still find ways to kill each other but with different weapons of choice. You cannot take crime out of criminals, the only recourse is to punish them. Rehibliation does not work very well, as has been proven over time.

Well, that’s what I mean about using the statistics to make whatever point fits your agenda. Of course the chances of being shot by a cop are greater than an HCP holder. Is that because HCP holders are somehow safer or better shots than cops? No, that is ridiculous. It’s because the cops are being sent to and moving towards the problems while HCP holders are not.

Of course if criminals quit carrying “gun crimes” would go down; that’s a given. My point is that legal carry will impact “gun crimes” very little. Also in most states if you are a permit holder committing a crime; you permit is meaningless and in addition to the crime you are committing you will usually be charged with whatever gun possession charges that would apply to someone without a permit. So as soon as you commit a crime you move out of the “legal carry” stats and into the “illegal carry” stats.

I also doubt there is any realistic way to even create stats for carry holders vs. cops or even criminals. If you commit an armed robbery, bank robbery or murder, I really doubt the fact that you are a permit holder is documented to make the stats available.

Most of what I have read, and I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject, say that most of the murders in Memphis and Chicago are criminals killing each other. Does that mean innocents aren’t caught in the cross fire, or murdered while crimes are being committed against them? Of course not.

You are absolutely correct about what should happen to criminals. Especially violent criminals that use deadly weapons in the commission of their crimes.  And I think we are about to see a move back to law and order and away from criminal coddling.

[bersaguy]

Has anyone ever found any of what could be considered accurate statistics showing how many non-LEO good guy civilians with CCL guns have stopped a bad guy with a gun to save their own life or the lives of others? I know not many News Medias like to say anything positive about the good guy acting in a good way to save someone or them selves by being legally armed but there has got to be some stats somehwere??????

[DaveTN]

11 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Has anyone ever found any of what could be considered accurate statistics showing how many non-LEO good guy civilians with CCL guns have stopped a bad guy with a gun to save their own life or the lives of others? I know not many News Medias like to say anything positive about the good guy acting in a good way to save someone or them selves by being legally armed but there has got to be some stats somehwere??????

That’s what I’m saying; there can’t be accurate statistics. If you kill an armed robber, active shooter, or burglar in your home; the fact of whether or not you have a carry permit is really irrelevant and not tracked. Good/Bad shooting by cops is easily tracked.

Justified shootings can easily be tracked; but that doesn’t mean the shooter was a permit holder.

Edited December 10, 2017 by DaveTN

[Omega]

I don't know, many stories do have CCW Permits mentioned, though not always in a positive light.  I don't thing that is actually being tracked as a stat though, as there are quite a few where no mention is made either way.  I know that the NRA sends out Armed Citizen stories, but even there some don't mention it.

[DaveTN]

The other thing that muddies the waters even more is that all gun murders are homicides. So they go in that category. A clean shoot won’t be ruled “justified” if charges are never filed. If the shooting goes to court a ruling on it could take months or even years.