Skip to comments.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
Posted on 03/27/2009 1:07:32 PM PDT by ME-262
WASHINGTONU.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill (H.R. 197). This legislation would protect the rights of licensed firearm permit holders by allowing them to carry firearms across the country without a confusing patchwork system.
"The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill recognizes that those who have a valid state-issued concealed firearms permit should not have to forfeit their safety when traveling," said Tiahrt. "Not only does this bill protect the rights of concealed firearm permit holders, it also maintains the right of states to issue concealed weapons permits as they desire. As a mobile society, legal firearm permit carriers should be able to travel from state to state and exercise their fundamental right to self defensethis legislation ensures that."
Specifically, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows:
* In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a states laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. * In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. * The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. * It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others carry permits, just as they recognize drivers licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
Boy wouldn’t that be nice!!
At last, a representative with some brains....
Why not a law stating that it is illegal to prevent a law abiding, sober person from carrying a firearms anywhere they want?
nopw that would be nice.
I have to drive form my house in north east FL to CT soon and still haven’t figured if it is safe to take my SIG.
laws here , laws there it’s pathetic and I’m sure the founders would not have wanted this
Imagine back then.
hey we have to go to NH from NY but make sure your gun is unloaded when going through NY and make sure when you get to MA it is covered up, unloaded and you have told the authorities about your use of carry
Problem here is that the "O" wouldn't recognize the U.S. Constitution even if it were to smack him across the face (by the hand of James Madison and other patriots).
You’re right! We should have the right to carry w/o a permit.
You’re always safer WITH your SIG than without it.
Now, I’m not urging you to break any unconstitutionla laws, but facts are facts.
We already have that law.
generally speaking, the only time your really need the 2nd amendment is when they come to take it away....
Self defense doesn’t stop at some state line. I agree with you.
They won’t make people show ID to exercize their voting rights, because it could possibly disenfranchise poor people who can’t afford an ID, why not the same for gun rights?
Pisses me off to have to get out at Texline, take the magazine out of my .40 cal, put the weapon in the trunk, cut the corner to Raton, get back out, retrieve and reload the weapon...so I just don’t. The “Safety Corridor” is just a little safer when I’m headed to Colorado to pull duty!
...it would require the states to recognize each others carry permits, just as they recognize drivers licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
It's a shame when legislation is needed to enforce Article IV section 1.
If we do see any firearms legislation get traction, no matter how good the original intent might be, I believe that it will suffer a worse fate than the 1986 "Firearms Owners Protection Act", which was also turned into a full-auto ban. This Congress is far worse than 1986, and the Kenyan Clown's administration would be eager to see a bill as bad as can it get ramrodded through, unlike the Reagan administration. By the time Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid got through with any firearms bill, it would be language straight from HCI's most cherished dreams.
Second, I would want clarification of "* In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations."
If this sentence would cause firearms owners in Alaska and Vermont to follow some sort of federal concealed-carry regime, then I think that this should be stricken and turned into something like: "* In states where firearms owners are not required to have a license for concealed carry ("non-requiring states"), then there shall be no change to the current status of firearms owners in those states. Furthermore, all states that require their own residents to have licenses for concealed-carry ("requiring states") must nonetheless permit untrammeled concealed carry for residents from non-requiring states."
I wonder what this will do to states like New York, Maryland, and others that issue permits on a “limited” basis. What about the residents of those states that are beholden to the whim of the legislatures. One can get an out of state permit from the likes of VA, FL, or UT, and thus circumvent tyrannical rule of their state’s legislature.
If that’s the case, it would force those states to conform to the standards recognized by 40 states in our Union. AMEN! HAHA Maryland, I’ll get my CCW whether you like it or not!