Florida Shooters Network

Remember a couple of years ago we came REAL close on this issue. Well, it's back. It is in the committee stage right now, but moving forward. I'd say passage is assured in the House. We BARELY lost in the Senate last time, but now we have some scared senators whose asses are up next year (Nelson!). Of course it would have to be appended to a "necessary" bill to get Obama to sign it (like the National Park carry bill was), but this is doable, folks!

http://volokh.com/2011/09/14/congressional-hearing-on-interstate-handgun-carry-reciprocity/

Get it tacked onto the stimulus/jobs bill and it can't fail.
"Pass this bill Pass it now!" BHO

be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

112th CONGRESS




1st Session




H. R. 822




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.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

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


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.


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 ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS.


The Congress finds the following:


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


(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


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


(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.


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


(7) 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.


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


(9) 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.


(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.


SEC. 3. 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


‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, 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 handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--


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


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


‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.


‘(c) 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 or permit issued to a resident of the State.


‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) 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.


(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

NonConformist wrote:be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

As usual, who is "they"--not the people who are pushing this bill.

Get informed.

NonConformist wrote:be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

Where do you read that in the bill? I don't see it anywhere. All the bill does is seek national recognition of a state's concealed carry license. The individual states would still run their own programs. It's similar to the national recognition of individual state drivers licenses.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

mjmensale wrote:

NonConformist wrote:be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

Where do you read that in the bill? I don't see it anywhere. All the bill does is seek national recognition of a state's concealed carry license. The individual states would still run their own programs. It's similar to the national recognition of individual state drivers licenses.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

As usual, he is talking from a fact-free "reality". When this bill almost made it through a more Democratic Congress, it had none of the provisions he is talking about.

One of the reasons I posted just a link is because the article itself has links imbedded. But I guess it is asking too much to ask people to actually read some of them. It is one thing to be uninformed--we all start there. But to be intellectually lazy and uninformed--that is on that person.

Same as it ever was.

NonConformist wrote:be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

Per what Moe has said, there is no reference in the Bill text to any national standards, but my cynical self can see this as one of the first amemdments to be proposed by the anti's in either of the houses. A last minute, non-voted amendment, like they did with so many of the previous firearm laws. (this is my tin-foil hat mentality from reading Unintended Consequences lately)


H&!!, recent history of the FL legislator shenannigans on the FL open carry bill is still fresh in my memory. What was originally tabled and what got approved were two totally different animals - notwithstanding anything that Marion Hammer had to say to Moe either.

Mark my word

Legal Alien wrote:

NonConformist wrote:be careful of this bill, they want a set of standards for training etc tacked on and once we let washington set standards were on our way to Cali and NY style CCW laws

Per what Moe has said, there is no reference in the Bill text to any national standards, but my cynical self can see this as one of the first amemdments to be proposed by the anti's in either of the houses. A last minute, non-voted amendment, like they did with so many of the previous firearm laws. (this is my tin-foil hat mentality from reading Unintended Consequences lately)

Mark my word

Dude, this is how ignorant rumors get started. You should know better (as opposed to NC, who is hopeless).

An example of what you are talking about happened in '86, with the machine gun ban.

Any idea what the '86 House looked like:

DEM: 253
REP: 182

Any idea what current House looks like:

DEM: 192
REP: 242

Anything strike you as meaningfully different? Say maybe 242 GOP Reps up for election next year?

I am sure what you fear will be tried in the Senate--there the pressure will have to be put on the Dem Senators who voted for an unamended bill last time (there were several--like the ones form Montana).

If we fail this time, then after the 2012 elections we can come back.

FYI:

This was the tally of Senate votes in 2009--we got 58 of 60 needed.

http://www.ohioccw.org/200907224563/thune-vitter-interstate-right-to-carry-reciprocity-amendment-fails.html

tector wrote:

Legal Alien wrote:Per what Moe has said, there is no reference in the Bill text to any national standards, but my cynical self can see this as one of the first amemdments to be proposed by the anti's in either of the houses. A last minute, non-voted amendment, like they did with so many of the previous firearm laws. (this is my tin-foil hat mentality from reading Unintended Consequences lately)

Mark my word

Dude, this is how ignorant rumors get started. You should know better (as opposed to NC, who is hopeless).

An example of what you are talking about happened in '86, with the machine gun ban.

Any idea what the '86 House looked like:

DEM: 253
REP: 182

Any idea what current House looks like:

DEM: 192
REP: 242

Anything strike you as meaningfully different? Say maybe 242 GOP Reps up for election next year?

I am sure what you fear will be tried in the Senate--there the pressure will have to be put on the Dem Senators who voted for an unamended bill last time (there were several--like the ones form Montana).

If we fail this time, then after the 2012 elections we can come back.

You make a very valid point regarding the House and Senate Dem/GOP ratios and surely hope that your optimism holds out.
BUT, I am going to remain skeptical until there is a final BIll signed,,- be it now or in 2012.
Our FL 2011 Open Cary Bill, with a GOP majority house was canibalized out of existance - and I am sure you still have fond memories of that.
I am not betting on any GOP majoiry to carry it - but will be very happy if I am proven wrong.

Well, you have a 2009 real world test case before you--a lot of speculation is not needed.

tector wrote:Well, you have a 2009 real world test case before you--a lot of speculation is not needed.

For a guy that is typically very cynical and usually quite negative of our politicians (or does that only apply to airhead FSN posters?), you seem quite optimistic about this Bill.
Maybe this is a good sign then.
Let's hope your optimism holds out.

Legal Alien wrote:

tector wrote:Well, you have a 2009 real world test case before you--a lot of speculation is not needed.

For a guy that is typically very cynical and usually quite negative of our politicians (or does that only apply to airhead FSN posters?), you seem quite optimistic about this Bill.
Maybe this is a good sign then.
Let's hope your optimism holds out.

Well, we did come real close. And there has been a helpful election in between. A better election in 2012 would make it a done deal--then you wouldn't even have to go through the farce of attaching it to another bill.

What you are concerned about would really require this--many, many Republicans would have to vote to impose uniform training and testing standards on dozens of states that don't want them. That seems really, really unlikely to me--not only is it anti-federalist, it would be incredibly dumb politics.

Conversely, what happened in Florida was a genuine loosening of the restriction on concealed carry (providing a legal "out" to what used to be an offense)--it just wasn't a loosing of the restriction on OPEN carry, which is what we wanted(and it seemed to undermine the ability to get genuine open carry anytime soon).

I would also note that while the NRA is pushing national reciprocity very hard, it was a virtual non-player on FL open carry, and was ready to give it away in 10 seconds flat. Big difference.

PS:

Just to have the full story about the 2009 vote, a couple of the DEM votes in favor of the amendment were secured after it seemed clear that amendment would fail regardless--supposedly the DEM senator from Arkansas did that.

Charlie Rangel is still around, remember how he on the FOPA? Voice vote in the wee hours of the morning.
I'd love to see CCW license treated the same as a driver's license. I am an extreme cynic when it come to those varmints in DC.

P5 guy wrote:Charlie Rangel is still around, remember how he on the FOPA? Voice vote in the wee hours of the morning.
I'd love to see CCW license treated the same as a driver's license. I am an extreme cynic when it come to those varmints in DC.

See above.

John Boehner controls the gavel now. Move on.

For some reason I am reminded of dogs that were beaten by some asshole they were puppies, and who now scurry away if you try to approach them with a treat. They just can't fathom that the old master is gone.

I'm a firm believer that there is no such thing as a Pro-Gun politician some are just less Anti-Gun than others.
Maybe I'm too cynical, I'll admit that. And after being beaten by DC and Tallahassee I'm hand shy, for sure.
Now wheres my treat?

Just a little concerned about this part (bolded) -

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


‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, 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 handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

Since the card is government issued - would our privacy still be respected? I'm not a fan of the possibility of being publicly identified as a concealed carry individual for obvious reasons.