Nationwide Reciprocity?

[Smith]

Anyone seen this yet? Looks good. Only possible negative is if it is a National law then theoretically permits could be administrated by the Feds. Putting my tinfoil on, theoretically, they could also pull RTC nationawide a whole lot easier than if it is stte run. What do you think?

NRA-ILA :: URGENT - U.S. Senate To Consider Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="newsHead1" align="center">URGENT - U.S. Senate To Consider Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="copy">Sunday, July 19, 2009</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="copy">

Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And

Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.

While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.

Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge these changes in state laws and recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

And, carry permit holders have demonstrated that they are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida has issued more carry permits than any other state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) as a result of firearms-related crimes by permit holders.

The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and—most important of all—will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves when deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.

Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter amendment. E-mail them today and call them on Monday.

To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here, or call (202) 224-3121.</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Guest redbarron06]

As much as I would like to be able to carry where ever I decide to visit on buisness or vacation this is yet another infringement on 10A. We dont need the fed telling us where we can and can not carry our guns. As 2A supports we should also be supporting the rest of the ammendments, this includes 10A. Nothing in the Constitution gives congress this power (not that BHO the allmighty would sign it any way).

Besides this would only lead to more trouble down the road for gun owners. It has already happened under other federal laws like the one for money carriers in the armored car buisness. I know a guy that was loaned to one of our NY offices for 2 weeks. Federal laws requires NY to honor his armed guard permit but when he was trying to leave he declared is gun at the airport (like he was supposed to) and they arrested him because he had been in the state for more than 10 days without registering it. That is not the kind of hassle I want to have on a 2 week vacation or a month long buisness trip.

Now the flip side is that if it were passed it might get some of the anti states like NY and IL to get into the 10A fight because it would be stepping on the rights of those states.

[Guest justme]

As much as I am for this--it is still a violation of the 10th Amendment, as is HR 218 which was passed some time ago. The Constitution already gives you the rights of the citizens in the several states--Art. IV Sec. I of the Constitution. Which means that we should already have the ability to carry everywhere in the US...but the simple fact is that the judiciaries in the states, as well as the individual state legislatures want to interpret the Constitution as they see fit...

But still--I want to see this pass. I am profoundly stuck in a Constitutional quandary--pass it and further expand the power of the federal government to dictate to the states--don't pass it and keep the status quo as it is...The one thing that ticks me off--it will not affect the states of Wisconsin or Illinois, or D.C...or any other state which does not issue "CCW" permits...

Edited July 21, 2009 by justme

[Guest HexHead]

They'd better slip it into the healthcare bill they send to Obama. He's been on record saying he doesn't think anyone should have a carry permit. Unless it's attached to one of his landmark bills, no way in hell he'd sign it.

Just like slipping national parks carry into the credit reform act.

[Guest redbarron06]

As much as I am for this--it is still a violation of the 10th Amendment, as is HR 218 which was passed some time ago. The Constitution already gives you the rights of the citizens in the several states--Art. IV Sec. I of the Constitution. Which means that we should already have the ability to carry everywhere in the US...but the simple fact is that the judiciaries in the states, as well as the individual state legislatures want to interpret the Constitution as they see fit...

But still--I want to see this pass. I am profoundly stuck in a Constitutional quandary--pass it and further expand the power of the federal government to dictate to the states--don't pass it and keep the status quo as it is...The one thing that ticks me off--it will not affect the states of Wisconsin or Illinois, or D.C...or any other state which does not issue "CCW" permits...

We will have to see how the ammendment is worded. It may say that if you have one in a state that issues it all states may have to abide by it or it may say only states that issue it will have to abide. I still have mixed feelings and see nothing but trouble coming out of it.

[Oh Shoot]

We will have to see how the ammendment is worded. It may say that if you have one in a state that issues it all states may have to abide by it or it may say only states that issue it will have to abide. I still have mixed feelings and see nothing but trouble coming out of it.

I don't think you have to worry.

Would bet most of the farm it won't happen as long as we have ANY states where carry is not permitted at all, or even are MAY issue instead of SHALL issue.

- OS

[Guest PapaB]

I'd like to see the Governors get together themselves, to work on uniform reciprocity agreements among the states that allow carry. Getting the Feds involved never turns out as well as it should.

[Oh Shoot]

I'd like to see the Governors get together themselves, to work on uniform reciprocity agreements among the states that allow carry. Getting the Feds involved never turns out as well as it should.

Pretty low priority issue, I'd say, since so many states are on the verge of insolvency.

- OS

[strickj]

Not sure how it violates the 10th myself since it is removing anti-2nd in states

[Mike.357]

sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone

[Guest canynracer]

I dont want this to pass.

I want the feds involved in my right to carry as little as possible. I am happy without them.

Most states that have right to carry honor our permit anyway. and we honor all states... The feds need to back off.

we cant, only want them for the things that we like and will benefit us, but then complain when they get involved with stuff we disagree with.

Its just better with them keeping their nose out of the states business.

Especially since the states that have the most money and influence; NY and CA for example are anti's...you would think that the NRA would have thought about all of this...

Edited July 21, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest PapaB]

we cant, only want them for the things that we like and will benefit us, but then complain when they get involved with stuff we disagree with.

Its just better with them keeping their nose out of the states business.

+ 10

Well said.

[Tim Nunan]

sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone

Agreed.

[tntnixon]

I don't believe it would be a 10A issue since the 10th amendment gives the states regulatory authority only on those things that are not explicit in the constitution. The 2nd Amendment is explicit.

[Guest momuzyk]

I wouldnt support it! Just seems if all states come under fed jurisdiction to easy to start restricting rights across the board instead of a state by state basis as it is. Just my .02 cents!

[Guest HexHead]

What exactly are we talking about here, a National Carry Permit issued by the Feds, or the states having to recognize all other states "carry licenses" just like they have to do with drivers licenses and marriage licenses?

I'm not getting the points many of you are making. Our drivers licenses aren't subject to federal jurisdiction, nor can they start restricting driving privileges.

What am I missing here?

[macville]

Hey guys, I don't know if you know, but the law does not create (at least not from all the information I have seen on it) a national carry permit. All it does is make other states that have any kind of carry permit let people legally carry in other states. So if you have a permit here, you would be legally allowed to carry in NY or CA since they do have a carry permit. IL still would be a no go since they have no permits period.

Here's why it is GOOD and totally Constitutional (at least more Constitutional than most current laws.) I know some of you think it's the Feds telling the states what to do. Well, how many of you think the states are going against the 2d Amendment when they don't allow you to carry or require a permit (like here in TN.) This is congress saying that hey, maybe we need to follow the 2d a little more than we have been. It's not perfect. That would be the Supreme Court telling the Feds and our states that the 2d means what it says. But until then, this is a step in the right direction.

Here's another thought. Since CA and NY are hard states to get carry permits in, it might actually help tear down those laws. How? Well, technically it would be easier for me to carry in those two states than a resident because I can get a permit easier in my state. Therefore, a resident might be able to sue the state saying how come a non resident can carry but I cannot. I am sure that would go to the SCOUS and maybe we could win.

Just a thought.

Matthew

[Smith]

macville raised some interesting points. I guess theoretically, folks in NY or CA could get permits in Utah and bypass their stupid laws all together. That would be a huge win. Just not sure it balances the negatives for us already in free states.

[Guest redbarron06]

The problem lies that not all states issue permits. I am not talking about CA or IL. Ga does not issue a permit. It is issued by the county judge. The same one I might add that does your marriage license. What about states that require registration? Or states that allow open carry with no permit? Is you permit good there too? Can they come here and open carry without a permit?

As good as this sounds, the fed has no buinsess in agreements for carry permits between states. If it is effected by interstate commerce such as armored car it is already covered as long a a person is on duty. We do not honor all other states marriage licenses we should not have to honor thier permits either. This is not in the jurisdiction of the congress to deligate down to the state that they will honor this. This law would be no more constitutional that LEOSA or NFA.

[Guest HexHead]

macville raised some interesting points. I guess theoretically, folks in NY or CA could get permits in Utah and bypass their stupid laws all together. That would be a huge win. Just not sure it balances the negatives for us already in free states.

With national reciprocity, there wouldn't be any need for non-resident licenses.

[Smith]

With national reciprocity, there wouldn't be any need for non-resident licenses.

There would be for places like CA, IL, and NY

[Guest HexHead]

The problem lies that not all states issue permits. I am not talking about CA or IL. Ga does not issue a permit. It is issued by the county judge. The same one I might add that does your marriage license. What about states that require registration? Or states that allow open carry with no permit? Is you permit good there too? Can they come here and open carry without a permit?

Just like with drivers licenses, you would be subject to the laws in the jurisdiction you are in.

As good as this sounds, the fed has no buinsess in agreements for carry permits between states. If it is effected by interstate commerce such as armored car it is already covered as long a a person is on duty. We do not honor all other states marriage licenses we should not have to honor thier permits either. This is not in the jurisdiction of the congress to deligate down to the state that they will honor this. This law would be no more constitutional that LEOSA or NFA.

Sure it is, it would be part of the full faith and credit act. Or should we just get rid of that too?

[macville]

The problem lies that not all states issue permits. I am not talking about CA or IL. Ga does not issue a permit. It is issued by the county judge. The same one I might add that does your marriage license. What about states that require registration? Or states that allow open carry with no permit? Is you permit good there too? Can they come here and open carry without a permit?

As good as this sounds, the fed has no buinsess in agreements for carry permits between states. If it is effected by interstate commerce such as armored car it is already covered as long a a person is on duty. We do not honor all other states marriage licenses we should not have to honor thier permits either. This is not in the jurisdiction of the congress to deligate down to the state that they will honor this. This law would be no more constitutional that LEOSA or NFA.

I'm not saying the law would be perfect, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction. It would maybe make more states fall in line with what's been happening over the last 20+ years with legal handgun carry. Personally, I don't think those of us in freer states would lose anything. What I think would happen is states that have crappy carry laws would be forced to loosen them.

BTW, it is the Fed's job to enforce the Constitution. The 2d say I can keep and bare arms. Didn't say which states only. Of course, this law wouldn't be like AK's almost 100% Constitutional carry laws. But baby steps forward would be better than nothing. The real problems would arise in places like KY and OH which allow you to open carry without a permit. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

I think this actually has a good chance of passing. I don't think many people thought the National Parks carry would pass, but it did by a pretty wide margin.

Matthew

[Guest redbarron06]

Sure it is, it would be part of the full faith and credit act. Or should we just get rid of that too?

It is not being honored any way so Why not. We dont honor marriages for gay couples and some states dont honor our carry permit. It should be left up to the state and the federal govt should not be shoving it down anybodies throat. Hell the federal govt can not even agree that people in Chicago should even be allowed to own handguns much less carry them.

If you want to do it right then fight all the way to SCOTUS that 2A is not just federal but exisits at every level down to and including home owners assns. Then fight that infringed means interfierared with, restricted, or regulated. Repeal NFA and LEOSA.

How are we going to feel when they get Cap and Tax passed and every new house in TN has to be built to CA standards? This is no different. Each state should make its own decisions. And they should be the ones to decide that we will honor one states and not anothers because of the reasons they decide.

[Guest redbarron06]

I'm not saying the law would be perfect, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction. It would maybe make more states fall in line with what's been happening over the last 20+ years with legal handgun carry. Personally, I don't think those of us in freer states would lose anything. What I think would happen is states that have crappy carry laws would be forced to loosen them.

BTW, it is the Fed's job to enforce the Constitution. The 2d say I can keep and bare arms. Didn't say which states only. Of course, this law wouldn't be like AK's almost 100% Constitutional carry laws. But baby steps forward would be better than nothing. The real problems would arise in places like KY and OH which allow you to open carry without a permit. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

I think this actually has a good chance of passing. I don't think many people thought the National Parks carry would pass, but it did by a pretty wide margin.

Matthew

Baby steps forward is getting all of the constitution passed down to the lowest level. This includes 2A and 10A. If every body in the US wants to carry fine I think it would be a safer place to raise my kids but the way to do it is through the Constitution and not around it. Article 1 of the US Constitution gives congress no power to pass such a law, 10A sais that if it is not mentioned in the constitution then it is left up to the states.