Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
National Rifle Association ^ | 25 Feb 2011 | NRA

Posted on 02/27/2011 10:25:50 AM PST by docbnj

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any 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 firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...


TOPICS: Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2nd; amendment; banglist; carry; ccw
The bill can be read at: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/hr-822-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill.html

H. R. 822 does not set up a federal system. It merely means that your home-state concealed carry permit would be honored reciprocally in states which also have a permitting system — much as a driver's license is honored. It will not allow reciprocity for your out-of-state permit. That means that if you live in a benighted state like New Jersey, where it is in practice impossible for an ordinary citizen to get a permit, you would still be out of luck in your state of residence.

1 posted on 02/27/2011 10:25:56 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: docbnj

I like it!


2 posted on 02/27/2011 10:29:02 AM PST by Doctor 2Brains (If the government were Paris Hilton, it could not score a free drink in a bar full of lonely sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

Should have always been there.


3 posted on 02/27/2011 10:33:15 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

—as much as I like the idea, it gets into states rights real fast—drivers licenses, incidentally IIRC, are not made reciprocal by any federal law but rather by interstate agreements-—


4 posted on 02/27/2011 10:36:24 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains

It will pass the House but probably stall in the Senate. Were it to go to Obummer, there would most certainly be a veto.

Progressives want only criminals and lackies to have guns.


5 posted on 02/27/2011 10:37:28 AM PST by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains

It will pass the House but probably stall in the Senate. Were it to go to Obummer, there would most certainly be a veto.

Progressives want only criminals and lackies to have guns.


6 posted on 02/27/2011 10:37:43 AM PST by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

This is BS!

Why do I need any .gov permission let alone feral gubermint permission to exercise a Constitutional right?!?!?!

Constitutional Carry!!!!


7 posted on 02/27/2011 10:41:02 AM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
—as much as I like the idea, it gets into states rights real fast—drivers licenses...

... and marriage... But then again, the right to carry is part of the 2nd Amendment, so one could argue for special status.

8 posted on 02/27/2011 10:44:40 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine (/s, in case you need to ask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I agree, it doesn’t make sense to support a law which is already codified in the Constitution, and the states implement it.

If we go this route, aren’t we caving into Wash DC to dispense the rights we already have?

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to reject this law, and continue the grassroots effort to elect those that would support their respective state to honor all concealed permits?


9 posted on 02/27/2011 10:54:43 AM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

The 2nd Amendment right, like any other Constitutional right, should not be considered absolute.

For example, the right to freedom of speech does not mean that one may walk onto the floor of Congress and shout at some of the elected people there, even if they deserve it. One may not disturb by speech a public meeting, or someone else’s event (such as a religious service). One may not indulge in defamation, or false testimony. One may not perform someone else’s © work. And there are many other examples.

There are even rational restrictions on voting: by age, residence, citizenship, and criminal record.

We have a right to free practice of religion, but the religion of Moloch would not be tolerated; nor Aztec human sacrifices; nor the former Mormon practice of polygamy.

So I am quite satisfied with a sensible system of permitting the carry of concealed weapons. It would be a big step in the right direction if we had this right honored. Children should not be allowed to carry, but a citizen of age, with a clean criminal record and basic weapons knowledge, should be permitted.

Here in New Jersey, there is a system for issuing permits, but administratively, and through the courts, it has been perverted by an intentional policy of arbitrarily interpreting the law to require a “need” which probably would only be demonstrated adequately if the applicant were to show up murdered. It is an arrogant policy by the state government, and particularly by a corrupt judiciary.

Although New Jersey has no 2nd Amendment-equivalent in its state constitution, there is a very clear statement of the right to self-defense, which appears twice in Article 1, Section 1. That should strongly favor concealed carry. But what can one do with the judiciary we have, which in many cases will not support clearly written law?


10 posted on 02/27/2011 11:05:56 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

Let’s pass a national Constitutional Carry law where we don’t need no steenkin’ permission from government to do so since it is a right, not a privilege!


11 posted on 02/27/2011 11:07:15 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Once Constitutional Carry passes then repeal the gun control act of 1934 that basically prohibits full-auto firearms. Then we’ll be as free as Switzerland in that respect. Maybe we could even have a nationally mandated holiday for firearms to celebrate the 2nd Amendment and get a refresher course on firearms safety and use.


12 posted on 02/27/2011 11:10:37 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

Another liberal intrusion against state’s rights.

You don’t like a state’s laws? Stay out. Texas recognizes all state concealed carry permits. But I don’t like those power grabbers in DC telling us that we have to.


13 posted on 02/27/2011 11:18:08 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Once Constitutional Carry passes then repeal the gun control act of 1934 that basically prohibits full-auto firearms.

Yep, repeal NFA34 as amended by GCA68 and the Hughes Amendment. Get rid of the whole, stinking, "sporting purpose" Nazi-gun-control-Dodd mass.

14 posted on 02/27/2011 12:09:41 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
‘We have a right to free practice of religion, but the religion of Moloch would not be tolerated; nor Aztec human sacrifices’

True! However the religious sacrament of the Left, Abortion on demand, is not only tolerated but championed by the elites in the media and the government. Never let it be said that evil does not prosper in this World.

15 posted on 02/27/2011 12:22:20 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

It was legal to carry, during my lifetime, without a permit, now it is gone. There are no watchmen on the wall, we have become a nation of pansies.

When we cast our votes to enslave our neighbors, how many of us think that God doesn’t mind? Sadly, probably most, even on this forum.


16 posted on 02/27/2011 12:41:27 PM PST by itsahoot (Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
"—as much as I like the idea, it gets into states rights real fast—"
Ding Ding Ding!!!! we have a winner!!!!
17 posted on 02/27/2011 12:50:49 PM PST by joe fonebone (The House has oversight of the Judiciary...why are the rogue judges not being impeached?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

I agree - felons shouldn’t have carry permits, nor should
drug addicts or the mentally unstable. We don’t allow felons to vote either, which one could argue is the most basic of all rights.


18 posted on 02/27/2011 12:51:19 PM PST by rahbert (" ..but you know all this. You're a Captain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

WTF are NYC, New Jersy, Wisconsin, California, Massachusetts and Illinois going to do? They’re gonna S..T, thats what they’re going to do...


19 posted on 02/27/2011 1:36:26 PM PST by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
I have a family member who works for the NRA. She tells me that there is a good chance that this will fly under the radar screen, be passed by both houses of Congress and be signed very quietly by Obama.

I am intrigued by the aside in this article to the effect that this applies to the District of Columbia. Does that mean that if I have a Texas conceal-carry permit that I can carry a concealed weapon in D.C.? If that is the case, then it is truly extraordinary; D.C. makes it difficult for its citizens to have a gun in the privacy of their homes. If this bill allows someone from Texas to tote a concealed weapon all over the District, it is a true turn of events.

20 posted on 02/27/2011 2:54:12 PM PST by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: docbnj

Constitution of the United States-Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
-
Was federal legislation required in order for Missouri to accept a driver’s license from a citizen of Vermont?


21 posted on 02/27/2011 2:59:26 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (My best comments have been deleted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
That means that if you live in a benighted state like New Jersey, where it is in practice impossible for an ordinary citizen to get a permit, you would still be out of luck in your state of residence.

Yup. Trenton will crap cows if non-residents can carry in NJ. They won't do the right thing and allow us residents to carry, they'll just harass everyone else.

With luck the SAF suit will bear fruit.

22 posted on 02/27/2011 3:05:52 PM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
There are even rational restrictions on voting: by age, residence, citizenship, and criminal record.

Why yes, yes we do, however we don't discriminate against the dead, as they regularly re-elect democrats to congress.

23 posted on 02/27/2011 4:26:53 PM PST by itsahoot (Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

It is a statistical fact that where concealed carry laws are on the books, all crime is significantly lower, but violent crime goes down dramatically.

Still, I don’t see zerO signing anything like this. He is a progressive (read commie) control freak.


24 posted on 02/28/2011 6:35:44 AM PST by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
--I've always thought that the "full faith and credit" clause seemed fairly straightforward but it for example doesn't cover such stuff as professional registration (bar membership and engineering registration for example) ,cosmetology, plumbing, carpentry, etc.,--

--here's what covers drivers licenses--

-- http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Driver/Compacts/Driver+License+Agreement+%28DLA%29.htm

25 posted on 02/28/2011 11:36:16 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson