The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 16, 2011, 08:59 PM   #1
dipsomaniac
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Posts: 3
House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

The latest from GOA on the mistaken H.R. 822. Support H.R. 2900 instead. House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

The House Judiciary Committee will soon be voting on legislation that will guarantee the right of citizens to carry firearms out-of-state. And the vote could come as early as today or tomorrow!

GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 -- introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) -- and explained the weaknesses in his bill. Many of you have taken action on our alerts and informed your Representative that there is a better approach.

That approach has been championed by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the author of H.R. 2900 -- or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. The Broun bill has several advantages:

1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

2. Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit; and

3. Finally, the Broun bill does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Passing gun legislation that uses the Commerce Clause for authority could undercut efforts at promoting Firearms Freedom Act legislation throughout the country which specifically declares the Commerce Clause has no authority over the production of intrastate guns.

We need to continue putting heat on Congress, now that this reciprocity legislation is beginning to move. You’ve already sent your emails, but now it’s time to change things up and send postcards. If the House committee passes the Stearns bill, then it will probably come to the floor of the House some time next month.

So there is plenty of time to inundate Representatives’ offices with postcards and mail -- urging them to support H.R. 2900 -- or to amend the Stearns bill so that it contains the gun owners’ protections in the Broun bill.

So, GOA members, please be looking for the latest mailing from GOA headquarters which should begin arriving this week. And please take the enclosed postcard and send it to your Representative. Then, take the extra two postcards and have pro-gun family members and friends send them, as well. That will multiply your efforts by 200%. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...en-hr-822.html
dipsomaniac is offline  
Old October 16, 2011, 09:07 PM   #2
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
I am so leary of the feds regulating my carry rights...

Even if this passes, it will die in the Senate.
shootniron is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 12:17 AM   #3
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Perhaps, but this is just a restraint on states infringing on a fundamental, incorporated right. It is still the states who must issue the permits, but through federally mandated reciprocity, a very strong web of states is created where any licensed person can carry in any other state that issues licenses.

I don't have the same reservations about this approach as I would if it were a federally controlled carry license, because it doesn't have the same risks.

I see this as a positive step toward re-normalization of carry.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 01:02 AM   #4
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
HR 822 only tells the states to honor the legal acts of another state. This is within Article IV of the constitution. (read it, not the ammendments, not the bill of rights, the constitution itself.)

I would be very concerned with the Federal Government going beyond that.
hermannr is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 01:42 AM   #5
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
VERY dangerous bill. If you look at the number of counties that give permits across the US, we only have a limited number of counties that don't. the states rights CCW rules are working WELL for most of the US. There is absolutely no need for to allow the FEDS to intervene in a minimal problem.

I see this as simply a Federal power grab offering Trojan horse in exchange for the loss of states rights. Leave it as it is and fight it out city by city, county by county and state by state. We are on the upslope of this issue. Look at where we were 20 years ago and look at today. Even 5 years ago, we are way ahead. The states are fighting the battle little by little. It is working.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 02:45 AM   #6
bacardisteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2006
Location: maryland
Posts: 373
My state "maryland" will never pass anykind of ccw other then what we have now. It doesnt affect me being as i have to carry for work but besides that and proving someone has threatend you atleast 3 times you will not be given a ccw. A friend works in a prison and carries for work when transporting prisoners and even he cant carry off duty. Crime in our state is terrible and i truely belive if we had better ccw laws the crime rate would go down so our only hope is this bill.
__________________
Kill em all and let God sort em out! USAF
bacardisteve is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 03:07 AM   #7
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
They said the same thing about Wisconsin.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 08:20 AM   #8
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacardisteve
My state "maryland" will never pass anykind of ccw other then what we have now.
Do you know about the Woollard case? It's item #25 in the Current 2A cases thread (which is stickied at the top of the L&CR forum). We have an ongoing thread, discussing this case and its importance, here. Currently, gunnies in MD are waiting for Judge Legg to return a decision in cross motions for summary judgment.

Right now, there are several cases moving into the Circuit Courts. All these cases are about the right to carry, for self defense, outside the home.

H.R. 822 will not make a bit of difference in how the individual States administer their own carry laws. Yet it does put the camels nose under the tent, so to speak, with the feds trying to control what the States can do.

H.R. 2900 will negate each and every current carry case at bar.

The Judicial approach that is being used, will simply apply Heller to all the States. How the States handle the recognition of a fundamental civil right will be left up to the States, with a bit of guidance from the Courts.

The two approaches are 180 degrees from each other.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 12:38 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 -- introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) -- and explained the weaknesses in his bill.
Of course they have. H.R. 822 is an NRA-sponsored bill, and the GOA exists to nip at the NRA's heels. For some inexplicable reason, that means submitting a controversial bill that conflicts with another already controversial bill.

H.R. 2900 has been before the House in two previous sessions, and it never got out of committee. It attracted 53 co-sponsors in 2008, and 35 in 2009. It currently has 6.

In comparison, H.R. 822 currently has 245.

Quote:
It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill
Which is the poison pill in the GOA bill. This provision was discussed during the drafting of H.R. 822, and it was quickly rejected, as it would lose votes for the bill and engender court challenges to its constitutionality later.

I'm not a big fan of H.R. 822, but it stands a much better chance at passage than 2900, which is nothing more than splitting the ranks.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 01:38 PM   #10
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
After reading H.R. 2900, I had to go back and edit my post (just above Tom Servo's post). H.R. 2900 is a dangerous bill. The GOA is wrong in endorsing this bill, not just because it's not an NRA bill, but because it will negate every carry case we have going.

If you can carry in any State with any permit, the courts will have no reason to reach the merits of whether or not carry outside the home is part and parcel of the fundamental civil right to self defense.

Consider the language of H.R. 2900. In both section A(1) and A(2) the language states, "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried."

I can see certain States passing legislation that enacts a "General Carry License" that is very restricted in where you can carry and where you can not. To keep certain people happy (the elite), they can also pass a Special Carry License" which would allow those folks to carry most anywhere.

The language above, would be successfully argued that an out of State license would be subject to the General Restrictions.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 02:33 PM   #11
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
Quote:
Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit
LOL, try explaining that to a cop in the street. As the saying goes, you may be right, but you're taking a free ride right now.



Quote:
I can see certain States passing legislation that enacts a "General Carry License" that is very restricted in where you can carry and where you can not. To keep certain people happy (the elite), they can also pass a Special Carry License" which would allow those folks to carry most anywhere.
Maybe you can see the above, but I have not seen a SCOTUS ruling on the degree of scrutiny as applied to gun rights. Such as you suggest will not survive strict scrutiny, should strict scrutiny apply. Who knows at this point?

This entire thread is worded with the assumption concealed carry must be permitted. I don't see a lot to support that notion, other than that's the way it is, and has been for some time. And this may be sufficient. Bummer.

If concealment statutes do somehow survive, the process will be parred down from what it is in most states. Something similar to the check you are subjected to on purchasing a handgun, accompanied by a small fee equivalent to the cost of same. No more "cash cows" for money grubbing state governments.

In the meantime, however, reciprocity between the states would certainly be desirable, given the current state of affairs.
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 02:43 PM   #12
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,018
I am a bit on the fence on the idea of a federal reciprocity law. On the face of it it seams like it would be convenient because I would no longer have to worry about what state my permit is good in. On the other hand I think this kind of thing should be fought out at the state level because, to me, a federal law would open the door for more infringement on states rights and cause some states to enact laws to circumvent the federal law.

On a side note: Even though I finally gave in and got my permit. I still think that it should not be necessary in light of the 2nd.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 03:55 PM   #13
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
How do driver's licenses work? I know that there's a compact between most of the states, but that seems to just involve reporting moving violations. Further, there are a few states that aren't members. I know that Nevada is not part of the compact, but I also know that I can drive in Nevada with my Idaho driver's license.

What make driver's licenses legal in all of the states? Google, which is usually my friend, doesn't seem to shed any light on the subject.

I ask because it seems that the same sort of mechanism for driver's licenses ought to apply to CCW licenses (although I've also been accused of living in a world of rainbows and unicorns )
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 04:40 PM   #14
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Please review the proposed use of a state drivers license as the basis for the National ID card. THINK about it. If they can do that with a drivers license, what about Federal control over CCW? The drivers license analogy does not help the case for Federal reciprocity, it instead shows the danger of such a mandate. Preserve states rights and fight it out there state by state. Take a look, we are winning the game. Don't let the Feds do an end around at this late stage in the game.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 09:52 PM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by secret_agent_man
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al
I can see certain States passing legislation that enacts a "General Carry License" that is very restricted in where you can carry and where you can not. To keep certain people happy (the elite), they can also pass a Special Carry License" which would allow those folks to carry most anywhere.
Maybe you can see the above, but I have not seen a SCOTUS ruling on the degree of scrutiny as applied to gun rights. Such as you suggest will not survive strict scrutiny, should strict scrutiny apply. Who knows at this point?
In case you didn't follow it, the passage of H.R. 2900 would moot all the current carry cases. How is that, you ask? Because since anyone could carry in any State with any carry permit, the Courts would never have to decide if the right to carry extended beyond the home. With the (now) sole exception of Illinois - and that would be remedied very quickly.

That's why I gave the scenario of a "may issue" State, legislating a "general" carry permit and a "special" carry permit. Should that be attacked in court, it would only require a rational basis review. As we all should know, almost every law passes that form of review.

H.R. 2900 does not contain the statutory exception that an out of State permit would be granted the same restrictions as the least restrictive license that a State might have. Language that is in H.R. 822, BTW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcase
How do driver's licenses work?
All State issued drivers licenses are valid in all 50 States because, way back when, all the States executed reciprocal agreements. The Feds never had a thing to do with it (One can readily see that with the REAL ID Act. Here the feds are coercing the States to comply. They do not mandate it, as they cannot).
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 17, 2011, 10:13 PM   #16
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
It will never pass. I do not want the Feds to decide what the states have to do in the area of CCW.
Who knows when they would legislate that no state could recognize any other?
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 06:22 AM   #17
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Most states seem to be slowly working this out amongst themselves.
I hope that continues, the fed gov has enough problems without worrying about my CCW's acceptance in another state.
If anything they should be pressing Illinois and Cali etc, so the whole issue could move along a little better.
These whiz-bang big fixes out of DC on a variety of subjects are playing out as less than advertised, leaving me skeptical.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 08:04 AM   #18
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
I'd much rather the federal gov take a long enduring vacation. Our federal gov has been making a mess whenever they could put their fingers in the pie.
That is their history as well as I understand it.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" --Ronald Reagan
American Made is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 09:26 AM   #19
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;
The LAST thing I want to see is a Fed law over ruling a State's rights, and there is no way I would want the Feds any where NEAR regulating a CCW.

Rep Stearns is my Congressman, and while the intent is good, like most Fed legislation, it is flawed - you cannot have a one-size-fits-all Fed solution to ANY problem or issue that will actually work
oneounceload is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 09:43 AM   #20
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I am not so 100% sure this would die in the Senate, you still have some moderate gun loving Democrats there. It would be CLOSE but I think it could get through.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 12:19 PM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
I am not so 100% sure this would die in the Senate, you still have some moderate gun loving Democrats there
It has to get through the House first, and that's where it will meet universal opposition from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and California. That's a lot of "nay" votes.

Even if it does, I can guarantee the Presidential won't sign it. He loses nothing by vetoing it, as the margin in Congress will be too small to override, and the bill isn't attached to anything he needs.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 12:40 PM   #22
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I think it's a good thing in general.

It is a rememinder to the pockets of anti-gun sentiment in the country that they are in the minority.

It may not pass but I think it's good to keep the pressure on.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 01:56 PM   #23
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
and the bill isn't attached to anything he needs.
The president needs some goodwill from Republicans to begin passing the "bite size" portions of his jobs bill if he has any hope or reelection. This bill wouldn't **** off his base too much and might get that goodwill. Stranger things have happened is all I am saying. I am not sure 100% myself if this is a good thing, or a bad thing. Once the Government gets involved everything tends to go Bizzaro world sooner or later, with good becoming bad and bad becoming worse :-\
Patriot86 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 02:29 PM   #24
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
There is another thread here about letigation versus legislation.

I'm not even sure this is constitutional.

If it is constitutional then it's unecesary since all the states would have to eventually adhere to the same standard - the same way that Miranda rights cannot vary from state to state.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 02:44 PM   #25
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
This bill wouldn't **** off his base too much and might get that goodwill.
I may be misreading things, but I'm not seeing much potential for goodwill on the Hill right now.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a hot-button political issue at the moment. If it was, we'd be hearing about this on the evening news. We're not. Other issues have the center stage, both in the legislature and the media. As such, the President doesn't really have anything to lose by vetoing it.

On the other hand, signing it might further alienate what's left of his base, which is comprised of folks who very strongly support gun control.

Without a vast majority, I don't see this passing.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14767 seconds with 7 queries