TIme to Write your Senators about the Reciprocity Bill S. 2188

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Well, it looks like some senators are trying to amend the National Right to Carry, and set the rules at the National Level. At least that is how I am reading the latest information.

If so, I think we need to write our senators and let them know that we do not support a National Nanny State standard or registary.

S. 2188, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State

S. 2188 would amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 3/13/2012: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Do you get the same feeling on this latest move in the Senate?

Edited March 14, 2012 by RobThatsMe

[Garufa]

There is no "National Right to Carry".

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Depends on how the Feds re-write H.R. 822

Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.†The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822, which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state's laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

[macville]

Are you guys angry about HR822/S2188 or happy about it? 822 as currently written and passed is a good bill because it acknowledges the 2d amendment at least some for a change.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Are you guys angry about HR822/S2188 or happy about it? 822 as currently written and passed is a good bill because it acknowledges the 2d amendment at least some for a change.

I am happy with HR 822. But, leary about S. 2188, as this coud be ammended to read differently than HR822.

IMHO I think it bears close watch as it moves through the Senate.

Rob

[Mike.357]

I would prefer that the Federal gov't stay out of it.

If they can get a foothold saying it is okay, they can someday try to say carry is not ok.

Lets the states decide it.

[Chucktshoes]

^Pretty much this.

[macville]

I would prefer that the Federal gov't stay out of it.

If they can get a foothold saying it is okay, they can someday try to say carry is not ok.

Lets the states decide it.

While I would normally agree with this statement, this is one of the things the federal government IS supposed to tell the states what to do. Of course, they are supposed to tell them that they can't really limit arms, but hey they are a bunch of self-serving jackwads.

[Oh Shoot]

While I would normally agree with this statement, this is one of the things the federal government IS supposed to tell the states what to do. Of course, they are supposed to tell them that they can't really limit arms, but hey they are a bunch of self-serving jackwads.

That's the ONLY thing I agree the fed should do is simply incorporate the first amendment so that the states had NO say in ownership or carry.

Short of that, which won't happen, I don't want the fed setting ANY more precedents about what they control regarding firearms. Granting something is only a small step from banning something, once the precedent for jurisdiction is established.

The only national actions I would support would be repeal of any and all federal firearms laws.

- OS

[BluewaterTactical]

I would prefer that the Federal gov't stay out of it.

If they can get a foothold saying it is okay, they can someday try to say carry is not ok.

Lets the states decide it.

Yep.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The only national actions I would support would be repeal of any and all federal firearms laws.

- OS

Starting with the Hughes ammendment and working backwards.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

There is no upside to this. States control where and when you carry, period.

The SCOTUS had an opportunity to acknowledge the right to bear arms for all citizens, and they refused to do it because they knew the Federal government couldn’t enforce it.

If a state wanted to let you carry they would have reciprocity with us. If they don’t I doubt most of them would go along with this because the Feds told them they had to.

Short of the SCOTUS acknowledging the right to bear arms for all citizens, no good can come from the Feds getting involved in carry laws.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Starting with the Hughes ammendment and working backwards.

Dolomite

Ditto!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1gewehr]

Starting with the Hughes ammendment and working backwards.

Dolomite

:up: :up: :up:

[mikegideon]

I would prefer that the Federal gov't stay out of it.

If they can get a foothold saying it is okay, they can someday try to say carry is not ok.

Lets the states decide it.

Yep. Odds are good that the feds will only make it worse.

[daddyo]

I would prefer that the Federal gov't stay out of it.

If they can get a foothold saying it is okay, they can someday try to say carry is not ok.

Lets the states decide it.

Yuuuuup.

Edited March 15, 2012 by DaddyO

[MikePapa1]

I'm glad to see the opinions here. I'm ambivalent about the "benefits" of any national legislation. While I'd welcome a uniform standard I can't help but think the feds will one, screw it up and two, once their nose is under the tent allege federal preemption in an attempt to undermine state protections. As a result, I think I come down opposed to any federal legislation in this area.

Gun advocates would be better served to try the Uniform Statute method of standardization of carry issues.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Without trying to argue an otherwise losing argument, the 2nd Amendment is a statement

acknowledging an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It would appear to me that it is

the "law of the land' already and the rest of the ridiculous laws should be nullified to further

confirm this fact, at least in my mind. It seems that a state law would be in conflict with the

2nd Amendment if any state restricted that inalienable right at all.

Of course we wouldn't need such laws as the "safe passage bill" or any of the other laws

returning that right back to the "citizens", which is where it's supposed to be, to begin with.

So, I guess I'm of the opinion that the feds should do as instructed by the Constitution and

abide by it, instead of mock it.

Edited March 16, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Perhaps the wheels of change are moving slow, but they are moving.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-05/drivers-license-gun-permits/53391932/1