In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduc

sohigh1sohigh1 Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 2011 in General Discussion
The bill reads as follows:

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

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on (blank)

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:
``? 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.

Comments

  • calrugerfancalrugerfan Member Posts: 18,209
    edited November -1
    It would be nice, but I don't think it will have any chance. If, by a miracle, it DOES pass, I believe that states will sue.
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,404 ******
    edited November -1
    So, if you are a resident of a state which prohibits concealed carry, you're SOL, but if you visit there, you're allowed to carry?
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • sohigh1sohigh1 Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
    It would be nice, but I don't think it will have any chance. If, by a miracle, it DOES pass, I believe that states will sue.


    Sadly, I agree on both counts.
  • andrewsw16andrewsw16 Member Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't take a deep breath and hold it. There have been numerous national reciprocity bills introduced. They usually die quietly in committee. MAYBE this time around Congress will pass it, but I remain to be convinced. [}:)]
  • sohigh1sohigh1 Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    So, if you are a resident of a state which prohibits concealed carry, you're SOL, but if you visit there, you're allowed to carry?


    Something I read somewhere else said no, you can only carry of you have a permit from your home state.
  • shilowarshilowar Member Posts: 38,811 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I see the O signing that one..uh huh
  • Colonel PlinkColonel Plink Member Posts: 16,460
    edited November -1
    I was afraid they were going to make a run at this.

    My opinion is that, despite its good intentions(?) this bill will mean that a CCW would be a federal tool, not a state one.

    And come under federal control.
  • Spider7115Spider7115 Member Posts: 29,704 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    They tried this a couple of years ago and it lost by only one vote. Maybe it has a slight chance this time.
  • bigoutsidebigoutside Member Posts: 19,443
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
    I was afraid they were going to make a run at this.

    My opinion is that, despite its good intentions(?) this bill will mean that a CCW would be a federal tool, not a state one.

    And come under federal control.


    or be implemented through executive orders- scary
  • Spider7115Spider7115 Member Posts: 29,704 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
    I was afraid they were going to make a run at this.

    My opinion is that, despite its good intentions(?) this bill will mean that a CCW would be a federal tool, not a state one.

    And come under federal control.

    Drivers licenses are recognized by all states but are not federally controlled. However, maybe that was due to reciprocity agreements between the states. Still, it's ridiculous to legally carry in one state but go to jail in another.
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,404 ******
    edited November -1
    This has "problems" written all over it.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 69,494 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can't wait to go to Illinois.
  • PanzerSlayer2PanzerSlayer2 Member Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by sohigh1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    So, if you are a resident of a state which prohibits concealed carry, you're SOL, but if you visit there, you're allowed to carry?


    Something I read somewhere else said no, you can only carry of you have a permit from your home state.

    If you are a resident of a state that prohibits CC you cannot carry but a visitor with a valid permit from another state can?
  • Tech141Tech141 Member Posts: 3,787 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Us Fools in Illnoise will still be Hosed.
  • o b juano b juan Member Posts: 1,941 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Problema in my estimation is states like Indiana utah and others that dont require Testing proficency with a handgun or a test to see if they even know how to use one.... Yeah , yeah I know all those guys know what to do with a gun because there uncle showed them when they were 12, and besides that they go deer hunting with a rifle and shoot ducks every year.. and every one knows you can use deadly force to protect property!!! yaho
  • Colonel PlinkColonel Plink Member Posts: 16,460
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Spider7115
    quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
    I was afraid they were going to make a run at this.

    My opinion is that, despite its good intentions(?) this bill will mean that a CCW would be a federal tool, not a state one.

    And come under federal control.

    Drivers licenses are recognized by all states but are not federally controlled. However, maybe that was due to reciprocity agreements between the states. Still, it's ridiculous to legally carry in one state but go to jail in another.


    I realize this is going to sound awfully obvious, but cars aren't guns.

    Driving isn't shooting.

    Where the interstate regulation of firearms is concerned, if the Feds can get hold of it, they will, in my opinion.
  • andrewsw16andrewsw16 Member Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm pretty sure I read that some states, like Vermont, offer a form of ID card that serves as a CCW when their citizens travel to states that recognize Vermont.
  • GashaulerGashauler Member Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by select-fire
    I can't wait to go to Illinois.

    I am planning on going home, Washington, IL, for vacation this summer maybe it will be passed by then. Ya, I didn't think so either, but it never hurts to dream.
  • bhale187bhale187 Member Posts: 7,798
    edited November -1
    Hope for the best, expect the worst
  • cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by o b juan
    Problema in my estimation is states like Indiana utah and others that dont require Testing proficency with a handgun or a test to see if they even know how to use one.... Yeah , yeah I know all those guys know what to do with a gun because there uncle showed them when they were 12, and besides that they go deer hunting with a rifle and shoot ducks every year.. and every one knows you can use deadly force to protect property!!! yaho


    The problem in my estimation is people who think that testing proficiency, requiring training, paying a tax, asking permission, or any other infringement is permitted by the second amendment.


    I don't like the language of the bill, that it uses "concealed" everywhere. I'd rather it deleted that word and left the decision on open or concealed up to us.
  • jeffie076jeffie076 Member Posts: 1,965 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What do you think Bloomburger will say about that? people in upstate n.y. who have a ccw, cannot carry in nyc, but can carry in reciprocating states, but the nyc people with ccw's can carry anywhere in n.y. state and reciprocating states. kinda sounds like the proverbial 'can of worms' to me.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,681 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
    I was afraid they were going to make a run at this.

    My opinion is that, despite its good intentions(?) this bill will mean that a CCW would be a federal tool, not a state one.

    And come under federal control.


    100%, Colonel.

    The last thing we need is additional legislation that will further ensconce the power of the Federal Government to interfere with a right.

    It is comical (sadly comical) that the bill as written references both the 2nd Amendment and the Heller and McDonald decisions. Both of these decisions confirm that States and Municipalities have the power to license individuals, register firearms, and regulate the type of firearms that can be registered. Implementation would require a Federal standard that over-rides any and all State and Local Standards.

    Well-meaning - perhaps - but implementation would add more legislated regulation and limitation.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
Sign In or Register to comment.