The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on January 26, 2009, 02:17:29 PM
-
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405
According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found "that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths." Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."
Should your natural right to self defense and your Constitutional right to bear arms end when you cross a state line? I think not.
That is why I, along with Representative Rich Boucher (D-Va.) introduced H.R. 197, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
TAB, your rebuttal? ::)
*Can we all send some emails downrange and light up the inboxes of our representatives? We need to let them know that we want H.R. 197 passed
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h197/show
Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.
-
As much as I don't like nationalizing something, the CCP being nationally standardized could be very good. Except when the federal government decides to remove the right to carry, then we won't have the states to protect us.
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111Swdagw::
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111Swdagw::
this maybe?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
-
this maybe?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
Hell, neither one works for me now.....??
EDIT:
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 197 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 197
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
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.'.
-
That bill will never pass, even if it does dozens of states will challenge it and it will be thrown out.
-
Then we keep trying until it does pass.
-
Then we keep trying until it does pass.
wait so you want something to pass, knowing that it will be struck down?
-
That bill will never pass, even if it does dozens of states will challenge it and it will be thrown out.
If it gets shot down ,it will be because people like YOU let it.
-
Besides, bho would never sign it.
-
If it gets shot down ,it will be because people like YOU let it.
oh you mean people that actually support the entire USCONS rather then one small part of it?
lets not forget that this law would let other states super seed other states laws.
For example, If for what ever reason you could not get a CCW in your state. Yet you can get a out of state lic, in say UT or FL. There by letting thier laws super seed your states law... yeah thats a good thing for this country and no state would be pissed about that ::)
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
-
Just exactly WHAT part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand ?
-
oh you mean people that actually support the entire USCONS rather then one small part of it?
lets not forget that this law would let other states super seed other states laws.
For example, If for what ever reason you could not get a CCW in your state. Yet you can get a out of state lic, in say UT or FL. There by letting thier laws super seed your states law... yeah thats a good thing for this country and no state would be pissed about that ::)
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.
-
I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.
Bingo! Just like a drivers license. You would have to abide by the laws of the state you are visiting, but they would not be able to deny you the right to carry. Probably would also force it to be honored in all states...... just like a drivers license.
-
I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.
Does not matter which side you take. If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument" then you have screwed up the power of states. If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs" then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state. pick a side, we all lose.
I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like) keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.
-
Does not matter which side you take. If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument" then you have screwed up the power of states. If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs" then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state. pick a side, we all lose.
I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like) keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.
TAB,
In the early part of the 20th century there were numerous state laws restricting speech and other elements of the 1A. Over time the 14A was interpreted by the courts to mean that our civil rights can not be abridged by state laws and are good in all states. In other words, it used to be that I could print what I wanted in say, FL, but GA would put me in jail if I printed it there.
Therefore, the 2A is a part of our civil rights and states have a very heavy burden to show why it is necessary to restrict our rights. In fact, SCOTUS upheld the lower court ruling in DCVH in that strict scrutiny has to be applied to the 2A; I'll double-check the decision to be sure about that one. This level of scrutiny is the same as applied to the 1A and is very difficult for restrictions to be placed.
Remember the constitution is about the individual and not the state. In fact, states do not have rights at all. They only have "rights" as to what the people delegate to it. The rights of the individual is the primary focus of that document and the rights of the individual must be preserved ahead of any of those delegated to the state.
-
Actually it deals with the rights of states in several places. Even the recent DC v Heller rulling said that restriction on carry were fine.
To date the 2a has never been incorperated to the states. Infact the only reason why we had a case in DC is the federal goverment has juristiction over it. If it had happend some place else the out come could have been drasticly diffrent.
-
If it had happend some place else the out come could have been drasticly diffrent.
No it wouldnt..... The ruling stated that STATES did not have the right to impose such guns bans..... it did not limit the ruling to DC only..... thats why it is considered such a precedent ruling
-
Actually it deals with the rights of states in several places. Even the recent DC v Heller rulling said that restriction on carry were fine.
This is true; I did forget the majority did say that carrying firearms could be restricted. This hasn't been tested yet, but how far is too far? If they apply strict scrutiny, it will have to be very limited restrictions.
I do understand where you are coming from about state's rights. A civil war was fought over that issue and over 600,000 people died because of it.
-
Does not matter which side you take. If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument" then you have screwed up the power of states. If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs" then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state. pick a side, we all lose.
I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like) keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.
TAB, your argument is bullsh!t, States rights have been a joke since 1865. In case your school didn't cover it , the quick run down is that the Civil war was fought to decide who had more power, State Government, or Federal. Slavery (which was dying economically any way) was simply the most publicized symptom.
To paraphrase Grant at Appomattox, We won, you lost, now go home.
-
Does not matter which side you take. If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument" then you have screwed up the power of states. If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs" then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state. pick a side, we all lose.
I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like) keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.
The federal gubmint isn't trying to give or take away any states rights or powers with this proposed bill.
It's not even telling the states who can or can not issue a CCW license.
All the law would do is allow you to carry in any state IF you have a licence.
like ericire12 posted, it would work like a drivers license. If you have a Ga license, you can drive in any state as long as you abide by their traffic laws.
-
The federal gubmint isn't trying to give or take away any states rights or powers with this proposed bill.
It's not even telling the states who can or can not issue a CCW license.
All the law would do is allow you to carry in any state IF you have a licence.
like ericire12 posted,
it would work like a drivers license. If you have a Ga license, you can drive in any state as long as you abide by their traffic laws.
I'm sure TAB disapproves of that as well. It takes away the States right to say who may or may not use their roads. And driving is only a privilege, not a Constitutionally specified unalienable Right.
-
I'm sure TAB disapproves of that as well. It takes away the States right to say who may or may not use their roads. And driving is only a privilege, not a Constitutionally specified unalienable Right.
and it is an incredibly deadly liability for those private property owners who have a parking lot at their business ::)
-
I'm sure TAB disapproves of that as well. It takes away the States right to say who may or may not use their roads. And driving is only a privilege, not a Constitutionally specified unalienable Right.
I ain't THAT dumb....I was just using that as an example since it makes the most sense. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I ain't THAT dumb....I was just using that as an example since it makes the most sense. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
We're not saying YOUR argument is dumb.
-
We're not saying YOUR argument is dumb.
I know.... I was just messing with you a little ....TAB would argue with a possum. ;D
-
I know.... I was just messing with you a little ....TAB would argue with a possum. ;D
Probably lose that one to ;D
-
There are hundreds of diffrent kinds of driver lics in the US... States do not have to exepct all of them.
Provisional and under age dls being the big two.
I'd also like to point out federal law also states that if you can't get your DL state of residence, if you move out of state you can not get your DL.
-
There are hundreds of diffrent kinds of driver lics in the US... States do not have to exepct all of them.
Provisional and under age dls being the big two.
I'd also like to point out federal law also states that if you can't get your DL state of residence, if you move out of state you can not get your DL.
How are your comments pertinent to this quote from the proposed bill ?
"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)."