Is H.R. 5782 something we want?

[Tim Nunan]

110th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 5782

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 2008

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SALI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`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 is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

( 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.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[The Rabbi]

Sounds good to me. Why wouldn't you?

[Guest darkstar]

Yeah sounds good. Wonder what the chances of it getting through are.

[Mike.357]

reads like a winner

[Guest nraforlife]

Yeah sounds good. Wonder what the chances of it getting through are.

Does sound good but I would think the changes would be slim to get it passed. Maybe I am just a tad bit pessimistic on the Feds addressing carry laws.

[TripleDigitRide]

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea. But, I'm sure someone will come along and set me striaght.

[Guest nraforlife]

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea. But, I'm sure someone will come along and set me striaght.

As long as it is properly posted...

[nightrunner]

maybe im just not understanding it but what does all that legal mumbo-jumbo mean?

[TripleDigitRide]

maybe im just not understanding it but what does all that legal mumbo-jumbo mean?

It means anyone with a HCP can carry in any state.

[nightrunner]

thanks for the explanation

even california? or illinois?

[TripleDigitRide]

Yes.

"subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried."

Edited June 3, 2008 by TripleDigitRide

[Guest shadow12]

When they made the Federal carry law for LEO's, they put the same state law crap in it, so it pretty much nullifies the law. Right now you can carry in most states, so what good is it going to do if this gets passed, New York is still off limits and S.C. is still good.

[Guest Mugster]

Somehow this means tax money. The gun game is a lucrative industry for the state. I'm sure more than a few agencies that want in on the action. Plus this means a new building somewhere...

[The Rabbi]

If it meant we could carry in all 50 it would be money well spent. I wouldn't begrudge it at all.

[Tim Nunan]

Sounds good to me. Why wouldn't you?

<!--StartFragment -->"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." Purportedly said by Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

[The Rabbi]

So we should oppose the legislation because it "might" turn out to be detrimental in some unspecified way?

[Tim Nunan]

So we should oppose the legislation because it "might" turn out to be detrimental in some unspecified way?

Should at least look at all legislation with a jaundice eye.

[The Rabbi]

There's a jaundiced eye and there's outright paranoid tinfoil hattery. I didnt see anything in the text as posted that suggested anything negative. Is there some information here you're not sharing?

[saintsfanbrian]

And then there is the States right to self government. While I too would like the ability to carry in all 50 states the true statesman in me says that if State A doesn't allow me to carry I just don't go to that state.

Wasn't a really big war fought over the states rights to govern as they see fit? The fed needs to worry about national defense and interstate commerce etc and keep out of individual state business. If California doesn't want me to carry I won't go there. If Montana says come ahead and carry as you see fit guess where I will go?

[The Rabbi]

I've heard that argument.

I'd say, states' rights is great and lets fight that battle elsewhere. Already the concept has been trampled so many times it looks like the wily Coyote after the road runner's gotten through with him. If we're going to have massive central power, let's at least get some benefit from it for once.

[Tim Nunan]

There's a jaundiced eye and there's outright paranoid tinfoil hattery. I didnt see anything in the text as posted that suggested anything negative. Is there some information here you're not sharing?

You're quick to assign me to the tinfoil hat brigade merely because I don't blindly accept a carrot from federal legislators on an issue that might be favorable to me.

Now if the bill was justified by referencing the 2nd Amendment by the application of the 14th Amendment it would be a major gain for gun owners on many levels.

As is at least this bill is better than a federal carry law which of course currently would never pass and if passed would be subject to qualification requirements written by many who don't trust an armed society.

[Guest ColdEspresso]

I don't see anything wrong with this. Does anyone think that it has a snowballs chance of passing?

[Guest canynracer]

nope...CA, NY, IL will never let it happen......now...maybe if the timing was different, like AFTER SCOTUS proclaims individual right...then, maybe...but still I doubt it.

[The Rabbi]

You're quick to assign me to the tinfoil hat brigade merely because I don't blindly accept a carrot from federal legislators on an issue that might be favorable to me.

Now if the bill was justified by referencing the 2nd Amendment by the application of the 14th Amendment it would be a major gain for gun owners on many levels.

As is at least this bill is better than a federal carry law which of course currently would never pass and if passed would be subject to qualification requirements written by many who don't trust an armed society.

No, I assign you to the tin foil hat brigade because instead of articulating reasons why this might not be good you mutter darkly about the government.

Newsflash: No legislation is going to reference the 2nd Amendment. They don't do that. If you're waiting for that, you'll be waiting a long time.

[Fallguy]

Overall I like the bill.

The only thing that worries me is if the federal goverment comes up with some sort of default laws because of states like NY, CA or more IL and WI that have no carry permits as it is, so therefore no law relating to where and how to carry.

Granted that if these default laws only applied to places like WI and IL...any carry would still be better than none and it shouldn't be a problem. Just slightly worried that some states could see the federal regs as a standard to go by.