Jump to content

National Carry Reciprocity bill - US Congress


GarandFan

Recommended Posts

This is of interest. Note that a similar bill was filed last year, and I don't think it got out of committee. Note also that "notwithstanding" means "in spite of."

 

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.197:

 

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

 

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

 

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

 

`Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

 

`(a.) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, 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 by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (B.).

 

`(B.)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

 

`(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

 

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

 

`926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

 

Does this mean that we could carry in Illinois within these restrictions if this bill were to somehow pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

 

Does this mean that we could carry in Illinois within these restrictions if this bill were to somehow pass?

 

Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad congress is run by antis... :ninja:

 

Yep, I figure this will get about as far as the carry bills that get introduced in Springfield every session.

 

Pelosi will have this buried so deep it would take specially trained search and rescue dogs to find it. :Drunk emoticon:

 

 

Yeah, you guys are right.

 

You might as well go ahead and ask Rep. Stearns to retract the bill. It would be foolish not to give up in the face of opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

 

Does this mean that we could carry in Illinois within these restrictions if this bill were to somehow pass?

 

Of course.

I've been wishing and dreaming for a national/federal standard that would allow us to carry everywhere for some time now... I guess I can still only hope, dream, and pray that something like this eventually happens. Especially if in itself it will 'convert' IL :Drunk emoticon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I can still only hope, dream, and pray that something like this eventually happens.

 

I am pretty convinced that hoping, dreaming, and praying ain't going to get us what we need. You can do far more than only hope, dream, and pray.

 

We need to work, to pound the ground for support, and contact our senators and representatives again and again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird thing is that the title seems like it only applies to nonresidents, but the terms do not differentiate. I think in the off chance something like this passed, the ISP would probably conclude that only nonresidents with permits were allowed to carry, not residents with permits. This probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it would take a while to get it resolved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird thing is that the title seems like it only applies to nonresidents, but the terms do not differentiate. I think in the off chance something like this passed, the ISP would probably conclude that only nonresidents with permits were allowed to carry, not residents with permits. This probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it would take a while to get it resolved.

I'm with GarandFan on this. If all we're gonna do is pick the thing apart and assume that it wouldn't fly in IL, then we all should just pack it in and drop off all your guns at the nearest ISP station. Is it a cinch to pass? Nope. But then if we don't contact our congress critters and let them know about this bill and that they need to support it, it stands less of a chance. Will Durbin and Burris vote for it? Probably not. But they're only 2 out of 100. Contact anyone you know in other states and get them to contact their Senator to get behind this bill.

 

Sometimes you get lucky and circumstances change in ways that you could never have predicted. Look at our state. 45 days ago we thought we were saddled with Rod for another 2 years. A couple of things fell into place and now it looks as if we'll be rid of him in 2-3 weeks. If the SCOTUS were to incorporate the 2nd, and HR 197 were to pass, you'd have LTC in IL with very few restrictions and only the cost of a PA license!!!!

 

It will only cost you the price of one phone call or fax or letter to your US rep. Then, call all your friends, relatives and business associates in gun friendly states and get them to get behind this bill. You never know what might come of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad congress is run by antis... :no:

 

Yep, I figure this will get about as far as the carry bills that get introduced in Springfield every session.

 

Pelosi will have this buried so deep it would take specially trained search and rescue dogs to find it. :sweat:

 

 

Yeah, you guys are right.

 

You might as well go ahead and ask Rep. Stearns to retract the bill. It would be foolish not to give up in the face of opposition.

 

Retract it? Certainly not.

But this bill was introduced in the last Congress as well. If it couldn't get anywhere then, it is even less likely to move forward this time. Everything I have read since the election indicates that the anti's have gained a few seats in the house and will have a definite ally in the White House.

 

Pragmatic seems to have become a dirty word in some quarters but the simple reality is that as long as the current crop of rabid anti's run Washington and Springfield bills like this will never even be given the chance to come up for a vote.

 

We need to gain back control one district at a time by targeting the anti's that are politically vulnerable.

The machine controlled Dems from Chicago and Cook County don't have to listen to us, but there are plenty of RINOS and Dems in other parts of the state that can't afford to be that smug.

 

Those are the ones we need to target in the next election cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

We can save a lot of bandwidth for the site by realizing that national reciprocity will never pass in the current political climate.

 

And for an old Tenth Amendment guy like me, it raises deeply mixed emotions anyway. I'm constantly arguing that Federal intrusion into state affairs is already too deep.

 

Now if the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution could be invoked -- so that all states had to recognize LTC from other states (like drivers and marriage licenses) -- then that would be a way to do it without insinuating the Federal government any deeper in state affairs.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

We can save a lot of bandwidth for the site by realizing that national reciprocity will never pass in the current political climate.

 

And for an old Tenth Amendment guy like me, it raises deeply mixed emotions anyway. I'm constantly arguing that Federal intrusion into state affairs is already too deep.

 

Now if the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution could be invoked -- so that all states had to recognize LTC from other states (like drivers and marriage licenses) -- then that would be a way to do it without insinuating the Federal government any deeper in state affairs.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

I couldn't agree more, Rich! :sweat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States are not forced to recognized drivers and marriage licenses pursuant to the FFC clause. They choose to recognize them. Sometimes, in the case of gay marriage licenses, some states chose not to honor them, and FFC does not force the issue. Conduct inside the state is regulated by the state, they are not forced to comply with another states method of conduct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

We can save a lot of bandwidth for the site by realizing that national reciprocity will never pass in the current political climate.

 

And for an old Tenth Amendment guy like me, it raises deeply mixed emotions anyway. I'm constantly arguing that Federal intrusion into state affairs is already too deep.

 

Now if the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution could be invoked -- so that all states had to recognize LTC from other states (like drivers and marriage licenses) -- then that would be a way to do it without insinuating the Federal government any deeper in state affairs.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

With incorporation of 2A and the SCOTUS view on open carry you could cram it down the throats of the holdout states as far as open carry goes but with the dicta that 2A does not protect concealed weapons the 10A reservations are legitimate indeed.

 

Those same reservations about our 10A rights should also cast doubt on the legitimacy of the federal law enforcement carry act and the retired LEO carry act. If both of them survive then the LTC reciprocity act should pass muster also.

 

As far as Illinois' position on recognition under any federal mandate. The state probably would be able to prohibit residents. But with all the non-resident visitors and travelers packing and residents prohibited, the ban collapse in short order. Gorbachev! Tear down that wall!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States are not forced to recognized drivers and marriage licenses pursuant to the FFC clause. They choose to recognize them. Sometimes, in the case of gay marriage licenses, some states chose not to honor them, and FFC does not force the issue. Conduct inside the state is regulated by the state, they are not forced to comply with another states method of conduct.

 

You may be technically correct but the feds coerce compliance by threatening withholding of federals money.

 

Power of the purse, unfortunately for us, it is our money not theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be that guy, correcting all the time (perhaps I mistakenly believe that people actually care)...but, 10th Amendment rights do not exist. Governements (with 1 exception, sovereign immunity) do not have rights. Governments only have powers and duties. The 10th Amendment is a mere truism, it does not create anything. What most people would see as a violation of the 10th Amendment is actually invalid action under Art.I Sec. 8. The 10th Amendment cannot be violated, it is impossible.

 

You are right about the purse strings, though I am not aware of this being done to force states to recognize drivers licenses or marriage licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is our course of action on this?

 

Email reps? Or should we wait till it hopefully makes it out of committee?

I agree, what is next cause of action. I would like to see something like this, as it gets very frustrating having to arm, disarm, arm, disarm, arm, disarm (you get the point) on a trip/vacation! Not to mention the good it could do for IL & WI :frantics:

 

(It's almost as bad as the helmet law for me! Put helmet on, take helmet off, on, off, on, off!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is our course of action on this?

 

Email reps? Or should we wait till it hopefully makes it out of committee?

I agree, what is next cause of action. I would like to see something like this, as it gets very frustrating having to arm, disarm, arm, disarm, arm, disarm (you get the point) on a trip/vacation! Not to mention the good it could do for IL & WI :headbang1:

 

(It's almost as bad as the helmet law for me! Put helmet on, take helmet off, on, off, on, off!)

 

Sorry for digressing, but as a survivor of a few minor crashes, I love my helmet. Sure it won't save you in a major pile up, but it keeps a minor wreck from having major medical issues.

 

I lost control of my bike (wobble from loose spokes I think) at 80mph and ended up sliding down the roadway. The back of my helmet was quite scratched up...would have been my noggin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the majority of motorcycle accidents, the rider dies from various trauma to the body, not the head. In the majority of car crashes, the fatality is caused by head trauma.

 

Seems that Helmets would be a good thing to wear while driving a car/truck. Not so much on Bikes,....

 

lets not go off on the helmet tangent AGAIN. this thread is for the national reciprocity bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is our course of action on this?

 

Email reps? Or should we wait till it hopefully makes it out of committee?

I agree, what is next cause of action. I would like to see something like this, as it gets very frustrating having to arm, disarm, arm, disarm, arm, disarm (you get the point) on a trip/vacation! Not to mention the good it could do for IL & WI :frantics:

 

(It's almost as bad as the helmet law for me! Put helmet on, take helmet off, on, off, on, off!)

 

That would almost make a funny, but serious, letter to our leaders! Imagine reading an account of what it is actually like for a person to travel across the entire country in a Winnebago while trying to exercise their LTC rights. Stopping at each state border to reconfigure the transportation method, moving a firearm from belt holster to glovebox to case to the trunk, with and without locks, loading and unloading, separating ammo from weapons...what a nightmare?! Regardless if politicians all want or like LTC, 96% of U.S. states honor it and there needs to be some consistency to avoid all that needless shuffling of firearms at every state border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a letter from 1.5 years ago, which was sent to all senators co-sponsoring the National Reciprocity Bill (not just sent to Coleman). Have at it ...

 

 

 

23 July 2007

 

Sen. Norm Coleman

320 Senate Hart Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator Coleman:

 

Thank you for co-sponsoring S. 388, the so-called "NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS" act, sponsored by Senator John Thune of South Dakota (currently with 24 co-sponsors). Forty-eight states now have some form of right-to-carry legislation on the books. Those states, particularly those that passed these laws long ago, have witnessed remarkable reductions of violent crime.

 

I too support this Act because it addresses the problematical, myriad differences among state right-to-carry laws. Licensees have proven themselves to be extra-ordinarily responsible, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens (indeed, they must be to obtain a license). They strive to follow the law in all aspects of their daily lives. Yet variation among state regulations forces them to try and understand an almost incomprehensible array of regulations whenever they cross state lines. Just as driver licenses are recognized from state to state, so should right-to-carry licenses.

 

Passage of a standardized right-to-carry reciprocity law has become urgent. Recently, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, Stephanie Warren of Memphis, TN, was touring Chicago, IL with her husband. The 56 year-old woman was arrested for carrying a licensed handgun, even though she showed officers her valid TN carry license. She had not realized that the municipality of Chicago does not recognize the license. In fact, the Chicago police recommended she be charged with FELONY aggravated unlawful use of a weapon! Having no criminal intent whatsoever, this unfortunate woman was threatened with a felony charge for doing what she's legally entitled to do in her home state, as well as the majority of other states in the nation. Recently, I've read that she was charged with "only" a misdemeanor crime.

 

Moreover, I urge you to resist amendments to the bill's text that would allow certain states and cities to adopt "home-rule" powers in order to nullify the bill. Such an amendment would completely undermine the bill's intent, which is all about applying the same reasonable, easy-to-understand restrictions on right-to-carry all across the United States.

 

Please, and before another travesty like this can happen again, I urge you to do all you can to move this common-sense legislation forward.

 

I look forward to hearing from you about this, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. I'd be more than happy to help develop this bill, and support for it, in any way I can.

 

Sincerely,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question about whether or not this would create LTC in Illinois, it would have to. If IL is forced to recognize LTC permits from other states for out of state residents, it would also have to recognize those same permits for IL residents. If not, that would be a 14th amendment violation.

 

That said, section B(1) of this bill is a little frightening in that it says the LTC laws for states which issue permits apply to out of state residents carrying within the state. In other words, this doesn't fix the problem of all the different LTC standards between states, it just says states have to recognize each others permits. Each state still gets to writes its own rules on how and where carry is allowed. To get around this IL could just pass the most restrictive LTC bill in the US. They could, for example, require residents that wish to carry to go through the most arduous, expensive process, including registration of all owned firearms, eventually leading to a concealed carry permit, but limiting the legally carry-able firearms to single shot .22 caliber pistols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question about whether or not this would create LTC in Illinois, it would have to. If IL is forced to recognize LTC permits from other states for out of state residents, it would also have to recognize those same permits for IL residents. If not, that would be a 14th amendment violation.

 

That said, section B(1) of this bill is a little frightening in that it says the LTC laws for states which issue permits apply to out of state residents carrying within the state. In other words, this doesn't fix the problem of all the different LTC standards between states, it just says states have to recognize each others permits. Each state still gets to writes its own rules on how and where carry is allowed. To get around this IL could just pass the most restrictive LTC bill in the US. They could, for example, require residents that wish to carry to go through the most arduous, expensive process, including registration of all owned firearms, eventually leading to a concealed carry permit, but limiting the legally carry-able firearms to single shot .22 caliber pistols.

 

For now,I'd take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a letter from 1.5 years ago, which was sent to all senators co-sponsoring the National Reciprocity Bill (not just sent to Coleman). Have at it ...

 

 

 

23 July 2007

 

Sen. Norm Coleman

320 Senate Hart Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator Coleman:

 

Thank you for co-sponsoring S. 388, the so-called "NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS" act, sponsored by Senator John Thune of South Dakota (currently with 24 co-sponsors). Forty-eight states now have some form of right-to-carry legislation on the books. Those states, particularly those that passed these laws long ago, have witnessed remarkable reductions of violent crime.

 

I too support this Act because it addresses the problematical, myriad differences among state right-to-carry laws. Licensees have proven themselves to be extra-ordinarily responsible, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens (indeed, they must be to obtain a license). They strive to follow the law in all aspects of their daily lives. Yet variation among state regulations forces them to try and understand an almost incomprehensible array of regulations whenever they cross state lines. Just as driver licenses are recognized from state to state, so should right-to-carry licenses.

 

Passage of a standardized right-to-carry reciprocity law has become urgent. Recently, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, Stephanie Warren of Memphis, TN, was touring Chicago, IL with her husband. The 56 year-old woman was arrested for carrying a licensed handgun, even though she showed officers her valid TN carry license. She had not realized that the municipality of Chicago does not recognize the license. In fact, the Chicago police recommended she be charged with FELONY aggravated unlawful use of a weapon! Having no criminal intent whatsoever, this unfortunate woman was threatened with a felony charge for doing what she's legally entitled to do in her home state, as well as the majority of other states in the nation. Recently, I've read that she was charged with "only" a misdemeanor crime.

 

Moreover, I urge you to resist amendments to the bill's text that would allow certain states and cities to adopt "home-rule" powers in order to nullify the bill. Such an amendment would completely undermine the bill's intent, which is all about applying the same reasonable, easy-to-understand restrictions on right-to-carry all across the United States.

 

Please, and before another travesty like this can happen again, I urge you to do all you can to move this common-sense legislation forward.

 

I look forward to hearing from you about this, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. I'd be more than happy to help develop this bill, and support for it, in any way I can.

 

Sincerely,

 

I didn't spend too much time on this, but here's generally what it would look like trying to navigate all the various state laws while on a national U.S. road trip with non-resident PA LTC permit in hand:

 

Pennsylvania: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Approximately 2 hours later, Maryland: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

One hour later, West Virginia: Unloaded cased firearm moved from glove box to inaccessible location in vehicle

A few hours later, Virginia: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

North Carolina: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in inaccessible location in vehicle, case secured with lock

South Carolina: Unloaded cased firearm moved to glove box, lock removed from case

Georgia: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Florida: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Alabama: Honors permits in 23 states, but not PA. Unloaded cased firearm left in glove box

Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Illinois, Iowa: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Missouri: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Kansas: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Oklahoma: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Colorado: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Wyoming: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Montana, Idaho: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Utah, Arizona: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

New Mexico: Firearm unloaded, securely cased, stored in glove box

Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi: Loaded handgun, secured in belt holster

 

I'm sure the anti's don't like the idea of LTC, but which would they prefer?: Traveller loads and holsters it once for the entire duration of the national road trip or having travellers repeatedly retrieve, handle, load, holster, unload, and encase their firearm at nearly every state border?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...