Nationwide Reciprocity?

[1908_Cubbies]

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.

I think that this is truely a federal issue... Gay marriage is not in our constitution. The 2nd amendment does not allow for state interpretation and the 14th amendment says that states do not have the right to infringe upon our other constitutional rights.

[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?

The full faith and credit does not apply to much more than a DL any way. Other states dont honor our armed guard licenses, doctors, lawyers, hair dressers. TN is one of the states where you have to have a license to do damn near anything. yet when somebody comes here from another state they have to get a TN licenese to pratice here.

[Guest PapaB]

After finally finding the actual amendment, I've changed my mind and now support this legislation IF it's passed without modification. The amendment can be found here:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress):

I've read the entire thing and the most important parts to me are those outined at the beginning and quoted below. I've put some in bold for extra emphasis.

"SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) 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.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) 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. (8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents."

The actual wording of the amendment supports those opening statements and doesn't appear to provide any loopholes for Congress to infringe on us.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just IMHO.

Without reading it I wasn't about to accept the way this was characterized publicly (I'm NOT referring to this forum or any of it's members). Most legislation isn't characterized honestly so I automatically become wary of statements in the media from any source. On this piece, I stand corrected.

[Guest redbarron06]

Do they give permits in DC?

[Fallguy]

After finally finding the actual amendment, I've changed my mind and now support this legislation IF it's passed without modification. The amendment can be found here:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress):

I've read the entire thing and the most important parts to me are those outined at the beginning and quoted below. I've put some in bold for extra emphasis.

"SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) 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.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) 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. (8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents."

The actual wording of the amendment supports those opening statements and doesn't appear to provide any loopholes for Congress to infringe on us.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just IMHO.

Without reading it I wasn't about to accept the way this was characterized publicly (I'm NOT referring to this forum or any of it's members). Most legislation isn't characterized honestly so I automatically become wary of statements in the media from any source. On this piece, I stand corrected.

The link doesn't work, for some reason I have never been able to directly link to page on THOMAS.

What you posted are the findings of Congress, but what does the actual proposed legislation say? Or what is the bill/amendment number?

[Guest redbarron06]

The link doesn't work, for some reason I have never been able to directly link to page on THOMAS.

What you posted are the findings of Congress, but what does the actual proposed legislation say? Or what is the bill/amendment number?

Full text

SEC . 1083 . RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS .

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) 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.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) 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.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

( In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) 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 firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms ; or

``( does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) 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 is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms ; or

``( does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``( A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms , be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``© 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 of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms .''.

© 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 .''.

(d) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.<BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">

Sorry about the highlights. I am not sure where they came from.

[Fallguy]

Interesting.

It does seem to simply be saying if State X issues permits, then they should honor any other state's permit.

Wonder how many states this would effect?

I mean TN and several other states already honor all other states permits or a couple that don't even require permits.

[Guest canynracer]

Ok, two things....

The biggest most passionate debate is always guns...right now the entire country/world is focused on "health Care reform" in the US...Dont you think its odd that this comes up right as healthcare talks are going south? ever think DISTRACTION??

another thing...this is the feds, if they can say "National Reciprocity" they can say..."Now you can all carry revolvers only, and max caliber it .32

And, My gun carries 14 rounds...I dont own a 10 rd mag... so, something as simple as that in CA could get me in a ot of trouble...

Some of your guns are not "CA approved" (drop test)...now what?

If the feds really want to help, they should work to make it very very public that it is an individual, unrestricted RIGHT...and let the States deal with their own public.

I will hold my breath till that happens...

[Guest Jcochran88]

Just announced on Head line news that it was defeated in the senate.

[Guest canynracer]

The Associated Press: Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon

Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon

By JIM ABRAMS (AP) – 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.

It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations. Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun rights advocates sought to show their political muscle again Wednesday with a Senate vote giving people with concealed weapons permits in one state permission to carry their hidden weapons into other states with similar gun laws.

Under an agreement of Senate leaders, 60 votes were needed to pass the measure, an amendment to a defense spending bill, and the outcome was uncertain. But the gun rights lobby, putting together Republicans and pro-gun Democrats from rural states, has a strong winning record in recent years.

Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.

The provision, Thune said, will ensure that the nation's 5 million concealed-carry permit holders can travel through the 48 states allowing concealed weapons without infringements on their fundamental rights. Only Illinois and Wisconsin have no concealed weapons laws.

But Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said the proposal would allow people from states that give permits to people with alcohol problems, or child abuse convictions, or which don't require any firearms training, to carry concealed guns in states with rigorous conditions for issuing permits.

"The visitors can ignore the law of the state, the law that the elected representatives of the people of that state have enacted," he said.

The gun proposal would make concealed weapons permits from one state valid in other states as long as the person obeys the laws of other states, such as weapons bans in certain localities. It does not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois.

National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. "We believe it's time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines," he said.

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. "It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws," said the center's legislative director, Kristen Rand.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would "incite a dangerous race to the bottom in our nation's gun laws." He said his own state, which has strict gun control laws, would have to accept concealed weapons permits from states such as Arizona, which issues permits to people with drinking problems, or Alaska, where people with violent misdemeanor convictions can get permits.

"Folks in Minot, N.D., and New York are going to have different conceptions about what's right for their locality," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank that supports gun rights. "In some states you have to show a real need" to get a permit, he said. "In other states you have to show that you can stand on two feet."

So far this year gun rights advocates have had the clear advantage in Congress. They managed to attach a provision to a credit card bill signed into law that restores the right to carry loaded firearms in national parks, and coupled a Senate vote giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House with a provision effectively ending the District's tough gun control laws.

House Democratic leaders, unable to detach the two issues without losing the support of pro-gun Democrats, abandoned attempts to pass the D.C. vote bill.

[Guest HexHead]

Interesting they let a ****bag like Durban opine since his state was one of two that would't be affected in the first place.

Edited July 22, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest redbarron06]

Yea just heard it over the radio. It would have effecte 48 states but I am not sure about DC.

[Oh Shoot]

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill....

A lot closer than I would have bet.

- OS

[Guest mustangdave]

Just read it got defeated...

[Guest ScottD]

Senate couldn't make it happened. Lacked 2 votes, from republicans none-the-less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?hp

[titan14]

.....the nation's 5 million concealed-carry permit holders can travel through the 48 states allowing concealed weapons without infringements on their fundamental rights....

.......Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center.....

Does anyone else see this as a very very very VERY SMALL percentage?????

Why can't these idiots SEE this???????

[Guest Arko]

I didn't think it would get THAT close. To hear it was within 2 votes is heartbreaking. Damn RINO's.

[TripleDigitRide]

They should have sneaked it into a stimulus package.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

You guys might think I'm nuts but I am happy it didn't pass. I don't want federal involvement in handgun carry laws. I don't think Thune ever really thought it would pass. I think it was a political move to get the Democrats to go on the record voting FOR states rights. If that is the case, it was a brilliant move.

[MacGyver]

I find it interesting that opponents of the bill invoke the same states rights arguments that they argue against when it comes to the firearms freedom bills in various states.

[willis68]

You guys might think I'm nuts but I am happy it didn't pass. I don't want federal involvement in handgun carry laws. I don't think Thune ever really thought it would pass. I think it was a political move to get the Democrats to go on the record voting FOR states rights. If that is the case, it was a brilliant move.

+1

[E4 No More]

I find this suspect: Senate Rejects Controversial Concealed Weapons Measure - Political News - FOXNews.com

"Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center."

If one tracks such things, wouldn't it be a definitive statement rather than to say "...at least...."?

[Mike.357]

i think it was a slippery slope, and I am not sad it got shot down.

[macville]

You guys might think I'm nuts but I am happy it didn't pass. I don't want federal involvement in handgun carry laws. I don't think Thune ever really thought it would pass. I think it was a political move to get the Democrats to go on the record voting FOR states rights. If that is the case, it was a brilliant move.

So you don't want the Feds telling the states to respect our 2d amendment rights? I don't understand your logic there because that IS the Feds job according to the Constitution. The law wasn't going to change everything to be perfect on gun carry, but it was a step in the right direction.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

Senate couldn't make it happened. Lacked 2 votes, from republicans none-the-less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?hp

Merged with existing thread....