The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: THE CORONER on March 04, 2009, 11:25:32 PM
-
HR-197: National Right to Carry Bill Introduced
January 25th, 2009 · 4 Comments
From the NRA:
U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), recently introduced H.R. 197– the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009″–a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees.
The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other’s carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses.
Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) is expected to introduce the Senate companion bill in the near future. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!
If you are not already a member, please join the NRA today!
responses so far ↓
1 dean0 // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:44 am
Too bad that there has to be a NEW law to validate our RIGHTS
2 Steve L // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:30 pm
It is about time this becomes a law. I as a citizen of the United States of America appreciate this action.
3 Jeremy // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I hope the recognition of all,”Free-mans” second amendment rights are finally recognized. It’s a shame a person that is legal in his or her homestate can’t legally carry thier firearm accross state boundries when the criminal mind doesn’t care.
4 Mike // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:35 pm
This is a case of prudent people attempting to pass a prudent right to carry law from State to State. Wake Up D.C. and do what we are telling you
What's your opinion on this proposed legislation?
-
I've already been on the elected officials about it. Pass it or find a REAL job.
-
Yeah, I think the feds should mandate nationwide reciprocity. Otherwise, traveling the country unarmed is out of the question. I won't break the law to carry concealed. I can see local jurisdictions messing with us anyways; like in Cleveland. They got a bunch of anti-gunners there. Hope it goes through. I carry everyday, everywhere I'm legal to do so. Therefore, I don't ever want to be "sniped" on some local non-preemptive chump charge.
-
Its a bad idea...
the only way I would ever be behind a nat'l CCW reciprocity law is, if all states have the same reqs, same DQs and agree to it. Trust me, we don't want the federal goverment steping in here... more so now then ever.
-
I've been involved in a bit of a discussion about this on the "down range" forum, but this is where the thread belongs. With your indulgence I'll repost a a bit of what another member and I had to say about this today, as I'd really like to hear some opinions. I am on the one hand, very supportive of this, but on the other fearful it would let the national DNC muck about with existing state laws.
Waiting for your .02 worth
fightingquaker13
The following is the corrspondence between tomboggan myself
E Mail I just sent B Hore:
You claimed you supported the 2nd amendment, If so you should be pushing the "national right to carry legislation being proposed. (From tomboggan)
I have some serious questions about this, having not read the bill. I very strogly support the idea in theory. My worry, and it might seem strange to those who have followed the ongoing debate betwen me and Tom on the state ccl thread, is that such a bill will potentially impose stricter federal controls than currently exist in the states. While Tom and I differ on whether a practical test should be part of a NEW!!! shall issue law, I think we are on the same page when it comes to leaving current law alone, so as not to give the antis an opportunity to start setting new restrictions and requirements. This may sound selfish coming from someone who lives in a "shall issue" state that enjoys 20 odd state reciprocity, but I still fear giving Kennedy and Pelosi an oppotunity to poke their noses into existing state law. If anyone has any thoughts and or knowledge about sponsorship or text of the law, I'd love hear it.
Fightingquaker13
Fightingquaker, You seem to have lost the [ ] between quote and comment.
As I heard Senator Vitter explain it, the permit process would remain the same but ALL CCW states would be required to honor ALL CCW's (National reciprocity, rather than national CCW) Since no 2 states have the same laws the permit holder would be responsible for finding out the laws of the state he was going to.
Hear the same interview I heard here;
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/ 03-01 part A
Check out this thread too: http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,5499.0/topicseen.html
(From tomboggan)
Let"s see if I can get the [ ] thing right this time. This sounds good IF it doesn't get loaded up with anti amendments. I also have a theoretical quandry. While the idea of a national shall issue permit (or its close enough equivelent, via mandatory reciprocity) is something I support, is this a violation of states rights and federalism.? After all conditions in New Jersey and North Dakota are different, should they be allowed to legislate accordingly? (Although I hear there is a dangerous SOB running around with MY assault rifle up there). I'd be inclined to say no since the second amendment is federal, but its not an insignificant concern. What about states like Vt. where there is no permit? Would this make it harder to get ccw passed in states like Illinois, New Jersey etc if they have to worry about a bunch of crazed maple syrup addicted, pro-Bartlett yahoos showing up wih unlicensed Howard Dean posters? I mean it is something we have to think about strategically. We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and it seems like the states are doing a pretty good about working out reciprocity. For me the goal is nation wide "shall issue" I just worry that we are potentially buying a lot of bad unforseen consequences in terms of making it harder to get anti leaning states to pass ccw laws. On the other hand fortune favors the bold. This isn't an opinion, just thinking out loud.
fightinquaker13
-
Senator Vitter CLEARLY and REPEATED stated that the CCW holder would be required to obey the laws of the state HE WAS IN.regardless of where his permit was issued. In this instance it IS like driving, in Ca. U turns are perfectly legal, in NH they are not," I'm not from around here" will not get you out of the ticket. Alaska already issues permits to people who wish to carry in states that have reciprocity with them, Vermonters can not carry anywhere but Vt. or Alaska, because they DO NOT issue CCW's. They are the only ones who would have to consider changing their law.
And as for TAB, He's a Fudd .
-
I have to point this out, but we already have a CCW law for all the States. It is called the Second Amendment! Last time I checked, it stated the people have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
-
It also says it "shall not be infringed", you see how well THAT worked out. All because some dumb sh!t had a "better" idea.
-
I have to point this out, but we already have a CCW law for all the States. It is called the Second Amendment! Last time I checked, it stated the people have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
I tell you what, come to CA ccw, go up to an offer and say" the 2nd amendment is my CCCW" when you win your court case, I will agree with you.
Actually anywhere where you don't have a valid CCW will do just as well.
-
Ah, but there in lies the problem, the PEOPLE have gotten lazy and allowed the Politicians to tell us and make laws that aren't needed. But you already knew that.
-
Ah, but there in lies the problem, the PEOPLE have gotten lazy and allowed the Politicians to tell us and make laws that aren't needed. But you already knew that.
This is TAB, read some of his other posts on CCW and gun free zones. ::)
This thread might tell you what I think of his opinions ;D
-
This is TAB, read some of his other posts on CCW and gun free zones. ::)
This thread might tell you what I think of his opinions ;D
Huh?? I'm missing some history/subtext here. Care to to enlighten us newbies?
fightingquaker13
-
Huh?? I'm missing some history/subtext here. Care to to enlighten us newbies?
fightingquaker13
Tab, living and working in kalifornia, has drunk some of the kalifornia kool-aid, and as a result some (many?) of his ideas are, to be kind, rather seriously skewed from a 2A perspective. Every now and then, like a broken clock, he gets something right, but then goes back to offering up his unique perspective on things. One example: his belief that a company's policy against handguns on a business' premises pre-empts a state's constitutional recognition of the citizens' right to carry.
Tom accidentally (I think) quoted bryand71 and then talked about Tab. After blowing up reading something ludicrous from Tab, I've learned to tune him out when he starts offering up the kool-aid. Tom - well, let's just say he has less patience with Tab than I do.
-
My views are on CCW are simple.
I like the tx 30-06 law. Employers have ever right to restrict them on the clock and from private parking lots. You need to have some type of training to get one, it should inculed the LAW and proof that you have a basic operating procedures of your weapon. if you screw up while carrying ( ND) you have shown that you can not safely handle firearm and should lose your ccw.
I also strongly dislike people that say "concealed means concealed" and " that sign holds no wieght of law, so I'll ignore it". Its a respect thing... you would not go into some ones home with something you knew they didn't want there. So why thier biz? Too many of us smal biz owner, are biz is our life.
I also beleave that states should have the right to choice rather or not the expect another states CCW.
a perfect example of this and its happening right now. WY is /was in the process of remove some state( maybe, its up in the air now) reciprocity. Why are they doing this? Its very simple, the states in question allowed people with misdemeanor drug offenses ( IE joint) to still get a CCW, but WY expressly forbids people that are convicted of those offenses from getting CCWs.
Lets face it, in a perfect world, we would not need CCW permits, then again in a perfect world we would not need guns for SD. The world we live in is far from perfect...
-
Tab, living and working in kalifornia, has drunk some of the kalifornia kool-aid, and as a result some (many?) of his ideas are, to be kind, rather seriously skewed from a 2A perspective. Every now and then, like a broken clock, he gets something right, but then goes back to offering up his unique perspective on things. One example: his belief that a company's policy against handguns on a business' premises pre-empts a state's constitutional recognition of the citizens' right to carry.
Tom accidentally (I think) quoted bryand71 and then talked about Tab. After blowing up reading something ludicrous from Tab, I've learned to tune him out when he starts offering up the kool-aid. Tom - well, let's just say he has less patience with Tab than I do.
KA doesn't have a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution also allows you to make the rules on your PRIVATE property. If a company owns the land, they do have the right to say "You can't carry here". The right to keep and bear arms, as well as private property laws are both Consitutional, how do you explain that?
KA is VERY screwed up on it's laws (I live here as well). You have to know them better then LEO does around here, or else you are in deep trouble.
-
Huh?? I'm missing some history/subtext here. Care to to enlighten us newbies?
fightingquaker13
Some how I lost the link
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,2609.0.html
KA doesn't have a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution also allows you to make the rules on your PRIVATE property. If a company owns the land, they do have the right to say "You can't carry here". The right to keep and bear arms, as well as private property laws are both Consitutional, how do you explain that?
KA is VERY screwed up on it's laws (I live here as well). You have to know them better then LEO does around here, or else you are in deep trouble.
One of the subjects that has come up in the past involving "private property", is workplaces and businesses. TAB maintains that the Company owner may exercise the same rights as a home owner since your presence is "voluntary", others, (me ;D ) maintain that if you want the job or service you have to go to the supplier, there fore presence is NOT voluntary, and the proprietor has no say over your legal non disruptive behavior.
-
Tom, I should give you the number of my workmens comp company... if after 5 mins you don't beleave they are the devil... That or fax you over a copy of the polucy... is about 125 pages... It will make you want to scream.
-
Worker's Comp.....now there's a bill that will get your heinie in a winder.
-
it runs about half what you pay your employees per hour...
-
...depends on the business category. We have a sandwich shop and it's about a thousand a year. When I was a GC, it was about 15% of my payroll. Independent Roofers have a hard time getting it at all and I think it's something like 20-25% of payroll, PLUS some of the companies make you insure yourself even though the owner can't collect.
I guess our government isn't watching THAT store either.
-
...depends on the business category. We have a sandwich shop and it's about a thousand a year. When I was a GC, it was about 15% of my payroll. Independent Roofers have a hard time getting it at all and I think it's something like 20-25% of payroll, PLUS some of the companies make you insure yourself even though the owner can't collect.
I guess our government isn't watching THAT store either.
Your talking about an organization that could not show a profit selling hookers and booze.
-
...depends on the business category. We have a sandwich shop and it's about a thousand a year. When I was a GC, it was about 15% of my payroll. Independent Roofers have a hard time getting it at all and I think it's something like 20-25% of payroll, PLUS some of the companies make you insure yourself even though the owner can't collect.
I guess our government isn't watching THAT store either.
Your clearly not in CA... no ones rates are close to that. Then again my Uncle who is building houses in ORs bonding and insurance is less a year then I pay in a quarter for 3x the coverage.
-
Your clearly not in CA... no ones rates are close to that. Then again my Uncle who is building houses in ORs bonding and insurance is less a year then I pay in a quarter for 3x the coverage.
In MA, your workmans comp insurance is based on the industry. We build heavy equipment so ours is rather high because the incident rate for claims is higher than say, an office environment or non-production environment. We have a fifty ton crane! It's big stuff, people get hurt, that's why the company has a safety team for every ten guys and keeps close track of any and all injuries. They require a drug test for any accidents that occur on the premises.
TAB, you work in construction and the incidence rate of injury is higher because of the nature of your business. That coupled with the fact that you live in California you poor fella.....
-
My comp rates are lower then anyone small biz owner I know, an any industry. A big part of that is the fact that I'm actually getting it from a trade union trust. Whats ticks the hell out of me is, rates get so much cheaper the more employees you have. Dealing with all the insurances and taxs are by far my biggest head ache. If it was not for the fact that payroll services charge way to much I would be using one.
-
That's because you are in Ca.
-
No the only real diffrence is the price... other wise its still the same BS every were in the US.
-
"No the only real diffrence is the price"
That's the part I meant.
-
I blame it on the fruad and lawyers. One of my clients is a workmens comp fruad investagetor... he tells me something like 70% of all comp claims are BS/fruad/milked for way to long. This is a man that works for the state of CA, investageting State employees. He says the worst offenders are higher ups that work in "public safety"( LEO, CO, FD... etc)
-
Its a bad idea...
the only way I would ever be behind a nat'l CCW reciprocity law is, if all states have the same reqs, same DQs and agree to it. Trust me, we don't want the federal goverment steping in here... more so now then ever.
We MUST take what we can get and improve on it in the future. That's the tactic that was used by the anti's over the last 40 years.
-
We MUST take what we can get and improve on it in the future. That's the tactic that was used by the anti's over the last 40 years.
the other side of that is if we pass a bad law and its abused/ struck down, it will taint all future attempts at simlar laws.