House Passes National Right-to-Carry Legislation

[goomba]

U.S. House Passes NRA-backed
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows 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.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.

-nra-

[osrb]

I agree with this legislation but there will be backlash. Cops in places like NY,NJ will arrest people who are legally carrying in some cases shoot them claiming that the person tried to pull their weapon. NJ cops have been known to arrest people traveling because the person had hi-cap mags and or hallow point ammo. They claim that in their state these are illegal and even though the traveler is covered by federal law it is up to the courts to determine.

[BlackFox]

Probably ok to have the gun, but they'll need to search your vehicle anyway.

[osrb]

Nov 17, 2011 10:18:44 GMT -5 BlackFox said:

Probably ok to have the gun, but they'll need to search your vehicle anyway.

That is why anytime a cop has asked to search my vehicle I always tell them NO. Every cop I know and asked they all tell me never to let them search without a warrant, If this does get into law then it will be on my hip and I would have to show them my CCW and tell them before anything happens.

[goomba]

Nov 17, 2011 8:51:40 GMT -5 osrb said:

I agree with this legislation but there will be backlash. Cops in places like NY,NJ will arrest people who are legally carrying in some cases shoot them claiming that the person tried to pull their weapon. NJ cops have been known to arrest people traveling because the person had hi-cap mags and or hallow point ammo. They claim that in their state these are illegal and even though the traveler is covered by federal law it is up to the courts to determine.

As far as I understand it, local and state laws that restrict standard capacity magazines and hollow point bullets will still stand. meaning that if I needed to go to new yourk I would have to make sure that I complied with NY laws regarding types of ammunition/ magazines etc. the only thing this law would allow me to do is carry my concealed firearm legally in NY, NJ or Kalifornia.

and I honestly have no need to go to any of these places... well, maybe LA, but thats only to go train with Guru denny of the dog brothers.

[Justin Thyme]

I think the Feds are over stepping their authority with this law. It is a gun control law even though it is pro gun carry and that is a subject that should be left to the states.

[goomba]

I have to agree wit JiT, it should remain up to the states. however, I honestly do not see this bill being passed in the senate.

[el Gusano]

If enough of the individual states give this power to the Fed, then it's legal, whether it should be or not.

[BlackFox]

Big government is ok when you get what you want.

[osrb]

Nov 30, 2011 8:40:53 GMT -5 BlackFox said:

Big government is ok when you get what you want.

No it is more like since they have already taken the states rights away in so many areas why not in one that benefits me.

[rstewart]

I don't see how it benefits you Osrb. In fact I would argue that it harms you in the end, because it takes that right away from the state, where it should be.

[osrb]

Nov 30, 2011 9:50:14 GMT -5 rstewart said:

I don't see how it benefits you Osrb. In fact I would argue that it harms you in the end, because it takes that right away from the state, where it should be.

It benefits me because I will have the ability to protect myself from armed thugs not just be an other statistic in a coffin. The feds have already neutered the states so this does not change a thing. If the fed returned the power back to the stated instead of created a all powerful central government and police state then I would not be in favor of this. With so many federal law and regulations already infringing on my freedom I would like to see at least one that gives some of it back.

[Conservator]

RS - We (or I, anyway) are all for states rights... but individual rights still trumps that. Seems to me, we all win in this case (except DC & Illinois citizens).

[Justin Thyme]

The Feds giveth and the Feds taketh away. Setting this precedent is not good in the long run.

[JC]

I do not see this as a states rights thing.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. The 14th carries that protection through to the states.
This supersedes states' rights.

[Justin Thyme]

Nov 30, 2011 16:37:30 GMT -5 JC said:

I do not see this as a states rights thing.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. The 14th carries that protection through to the states.
This supersedes states' rights.

You really aren't thinking this thing through. Right now if North Dakota passes an extremely restrictive gun carry law it will affect the people of North Dakota only. If the US Federal Government passed the same restrictive law it would affect every person in the US. I have no problem with restrictive gun carry laws as long as they can only be enacted at the local level where it they will only affect a few people who choose to live in such a community. Enacting these types of laws on a national level isn't good precedent, even if the law is now in gun owner's favor.

[JC]

Nov 30, 2011 17:03:37 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

Nov 30, 2011 16:37:30 GMT -5 JC said:

I do not see this as a states rights thing.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. The 14th carries that protection through to the states.
This supersedes states' rights.

You really aren't thinking this thing through. Right now if North Dakota passes an extremely restrictive gun carry law it will affect the people of North Dakota only. If the US Federal Government passed the same restrictive law it would affect every person in the US. I have no problem with restrictive gun carry laws as long as they can only be enacted at the local level where it they will only affect a few people who choose to live in such a community. Enacting these types of laws on a national level isn't good precedent, even if the law is now in gun owner's favor.

The Feds are not enacting any laws. They are simply making states recognize other states' permits. Just like with drivers licenses. Unless, there is something I have missed.

[duke]

JIT: "I have no problem with restrictive gun carry laws as long as they can only be enacted at the local level where it they will only affect a few people who choose to live in such a community. Enacting these types of laws on a national level isn't good precedent, even if the law is now in gun owner's favor."

Restrictive gun law that affect only a few? Like the hapless traveler attempting to pass through such a restrictive zone. You do support the concept of 'freedom to travel' don't you?

You also do not support the US Federal Constitution that clearly annunciates that rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. That same constitution has been ratified by all of the states. Yet the states chafe under those restrictions too.

[Justin Thyme]

JIT: "I have no problem with restrictive gun carry laws as long as they can only be enacted at the local level where it they will only affect a few people who choose to live in such a community. Enacting these types of laws on a national level isn't good precedent, even if the law is now in gun owner's favor."

Restrictive gun law that affect only a few? Like the hapless traveler attempting to pass through such a restrictive zone. You do support the concept of 'freedom to travel' don't you?

I have no problem with people traveling freely but I do expect people to obey local ordinances and I expect local ordinances to apply to everyone, resident and non-resident alike.

Do you support a communities right to ban certain breeds of dogs from the community? I see local gun control laws to be similar.

You also do not support the US Federal Constitution that clearly annunciates that rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. That same constitution has been ratified by all of the states. Yet the states chafe under those restrictions too.

I fail to see how this applies unless you are arguing that the constitution does give the federal government the authority to regulate gun carry laws.

[duke]

JIT worte: "You really aren't thinking this thing through. Right now if North Dakota passes an extremely restrictive gun carry law it will affect the people of North Dakota only."
"I expect local ordinances to apply to everyone, resident and non-resident alike."
Which is it JIT? You cannot have it both ways.

Should those local ordinances that travelers are subject to also be held in secret? Chattanooga has not updated the their on-line code book in years.
East Ridge demands State ID and payment of a fee to view their ordinances that have not been published on-line nor are all recent, as in the last several years, available in their public library. Yet, anyone passing through are presumed to know all the laws. Point the law in court where a cop is claiming a law that does not exist beyond the confines of the cops head, and the cop and the judge will be forgiven in the context that no-one knows all of the laws.

Refreasher on the US constitution, 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Just because Scalia and Thomas can find out of thin air, a permission to regulate firearms does not change the constitution, but rather only the way in which the US Supreme Court will allow government entities to get by with its violation.
The wording is very explicate.

[Justin Thyme]

Dec 2, 2011 16:22:42 GMT -5 duke said:

JIT worte: "You really aren't thinking this thing through. Right now if North Dakota passes an extremely restrictive gun carry law it will affect the people of North Dakota only."
"I expect local ordinances to apply to everyone, resident and non-resident alike."
Which is it JIT? You cannot have it both ways.

Should those local ordinances that travelers are subject to also be held in secret? Chattanooga has not updated the their on-line code book in years.
East Ridge demands State ID and payment of a fee to view their ordinances that have not been published on-line nor are all recent, as in the last several years, available in their public library. Yet, anyone passing through are presumed to know all the laws. Point the law in court where a cop is claiming a law that does not exist beyond the confines of the cops head, and the cop and the judge will be forgiven in the context that no-one knows all of the laws.

Refreasher on the US constitution, 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Just because Scalia and Thomas can find out of thin air, a permission to regulate firearms does not change the constitution, but rather only the way in which the US Supreme Court will allow government entities to get by with its violation.
The wording is very explicate.

When I am traveling I check weather conditions for not only my destination but also for the areas I will be traveling through. If I am traveling North after the middle of September I will carry a jacket with me even if mild temperatures are called for. I also check out local laws of the jurisdictions I will be subject to. I will know which areas outlaw cell phone use while driving and which areas outlaw radar detectors. Obeying local laws is my responsibility. If I am charged with some secret law I'll address that in court.

What you are suggesting is that all communities have the exact same municipal code, that perhaps federal law should be the only law of the land. I can't accept form of government. We are a nation of sovereign states united by a common constitution for a reason. When the country was formed each state understood that they each had their own culture and set of values that they held dear and respected the fact that each other state in the union felt the same. That idea has worked well over the past two centuries. Where it hasn't worked out we have worked toward settling the matter. Not allowing communities to be themselves would make this nation a much less desirable place to live.

[duke]

So the North Dakota people are indeed NOT the only ones affected as originally declared.

The law under discussion does NOT preclude local law, but simply a reciprocal law & policy in place.
In the case of being armed, All of the states are a party to the US Constitution that clearly states the right to bare arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Infringe = Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
The second Amendment indeed uses the strongest language possible in an effort to protect what the framers perceived as one of the most important rights, only after freedom of speech and religion.

[Justin Thyme]

Dec 14, 2011 12:10:21 GMT -5 duke said:

So the North Dakota people are indeed NOT the only ones affected as originally declared.

The law under discussion does NOT preclude local law, but simply a reciprocal law & policy in place.
In the case of being armed, All of the states are a party to the US Constitution that clearly states the right to bare arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Infringe = Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
The second Amendment indeed uses the strongest language possible in an effort to protect what the framers perceived as one of the most important rights, only after freedom of speech and religion.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Militias are sponsored by the state so the regulation of the militias, the how and when the arms are to be used, falls upon the state. Ownership of arms is a god given right that can not be infringed upon by the state or the Union. However, how these arms are to be used in public are clearly to be regulated by the State with each state to regulate the use of arms in that state.

The problem with the proposed federal law to force reciprocity of carry permits throughout all states issuing carry permits is that it places the Federal government in the place of regulating the use of arms which the 2nd amendment explicitly reserves as a right of the state. If you want to change that you will have to replace the 2nd amendment.

[duke]

The right to a "well regulated Militia" = is the right to regulate a Militia. The right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

One of the few recognized individual rights that the US Supreme court is willing to recognize is the individual's right to bear arms. DC v Heller(2008) laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.html

[Justin Thyme]

The right to a "well regulated Militia" = is the right to regulate a Militia. The right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who is the militia?

[duke]

Citizens sponsored by the state.
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities. www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amilitia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Justin Thyme]

Dec 16, 2011 9:55:46 GMT -5 duke said:

Citizens sponsored by the state.
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities. www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amilitia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights wasn't the militia considered "all able-bodied, free adult males?" And weren't they "on duty" 24/7? When would these militia members not been "well regulated?"

[JC]

Dec 16, 2011 11:46:08 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

Dec 16, 2011 9:55:46 GMT -5 duke said:

Citizens sponsored by the state.
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities. www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amilitia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights wasn't the militia considered "all able-bodied, free adult males?" And weren't they "on duty" 24/7? When would these militia members not been "well regulated?"

Jit, our founders and our first "residents" were not militia. They were mere citizens that rebelled and eventually formed the militia that defended against invaders. They were only "on duty" during the war.
The 2nd was written in order to give free men the means to resist the government, should the need ever arise. Which is something they did not have under British rule.

Looking at it logically, in context and in the times, yes, "militia" would would have been considered as able-bodied males.

Both young and old fought in the rebellion. So it's logical to think that the 2nd was written to protect the rights of able-bodied men. If you are a man, can walk and fire a weapon, your rights to own firearms, in order to form a militia, was protected.

Putting that in context of todays times, a militia could be formed by both sexes of all ages. Today, we're all equal. Back then, women were only here to tend home and have kids.


Personally, I find the arguments used against the 2nd as silly, to put it nicely. No one uses these arguments against the 1st.
Freedom of the press is not debated because it specifically says "press". We know this sections of the 1st was written to protect citizens that criticize the government from government infringement.
And even though we know this is the sole reason it was written, we have broadened the interpretation of the protections to protect everyone and protect every form of communication (well, almost all forms... can not say "fuck" on teevee).

No one does this with the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
It specifically states "men". Yet we give equal rights to all, regardless of sex or race.


So, to take the 2nd as literal as read by today, only the government's militia shall be armed, as it's the only "well regulated" militia we have. Do we really want that?
Or, do we want to take it as it was meant? Meaning, to give all free citizens the right to firearms in case a rebellious militia needs to be formed.

[Justin Thyme]

Dec 16, 2011 19:24:52 GMT -5 JC said:

Dec 16, 2011 11:46:08 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights wasn't the militia considered "all able-bodied, free adult males?" And weren't they "on duty" 24/7? When would these militia members not been "well regulated?"

Jit, our founders and our first "residents" were not militia. They were mere citizens that rebelled and eventually formed the militia that defended against invaders. They were only "on duty" during the war.

No, they were not militia but without a standing army they were members of the militia. War activated them. Indian uprisings activated them. There was no induction in those situations, they simple fulfilled their part in providing for the common defense. It was a duty that was expected of them and in order to fulfill that duty it was, and is, necessary for the citizen to have the right to keep and to bear arms. That right is also necessitated by the need to be able to defend one's self on an individual level.

The 2nd was written in order to give free men the means to resist the government, should the need ever arise. Which is something they did not have under British rule.

Actually, under the English Bill of Rights of 1689 they did have this right and the reason for the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is the reason we have the 2nd amendment, along with others, in our own Bill of Rights.

[duke]

DC vs Heller Commentary Page

Critical Historical Commentary on the Pro-Washington DC Amicus Briefs

By David E. Young

Several of the amicus briefs filed in support of Washington DC's handgun ban in the Heller case rely on historical arguments and documents. There is one major historical flaw in all of these briefs. It is their tendency to set aside the Bill of Rights development, nature, and context of the Second Amendment. All of the historical briefs supporting something other than a private rights protecting purpose for the Second Amendment fall into this category, and as a result of this fact, there is quite a bit of overlap in the articles analyzing these briefs. Yet, no two of these briefs are exactly alike. Each one stresses some slightly different approach in its presentation diverting away from the most relevant historical actors, statements, and occurrences for understanding the Second Amendment for what it actually is - a Bill of Rights provision.

One of the most surprising briefs is that filed by fifteen professional academic historians. Amazingly, this brief contains clear errors of fact, as well as statements of views that are directly contrary to those expressed by the primary Framers of the Second Amendment, George Mason and James Madison.
Click HERE for David E. Young's HISTORY NEWS NETWORK article criticizing the Heller amicus brief filed by fifteen professional academic historians in favor of Washington DC's handgun ban.

Chicago filed its own amicus brief in the Heller case. The brief filed by Chicago heavily emphasizes a historically impossible federalism purpose for the Second Amendment rather than a rights protecting purpose. Federalists were for federal powers not state powers, but they were obviously not against protecting private rights as the first eight amendments prove. <snip>

www.secondamendmentinfo.com/DCvHeller/index.html
www.secondamendmentinfo.com/