National CCW reciprocity bill clears House panel

[DD977GM2]

19-11 vote to go onto the Senate by end of 2011. This would be ****ing awesome
if this passes and my CCW permit is valid in California since I have family there
and love the ocean. I would really enjoy going to all these non gun friendly states
with the ability to defend myself and my family

[B]House panel clears conceal-and-carry gun bill, with one Republican defection (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/189951-house-panel-clears-gun-rights-bill-with-one-gop-defection)

[Monky]

your link she is broken!

[ghettodub]

nice to hear! I know RMGO and NAGR were against this, but I'm for it

[DD977GM2]

nice to hear! I know RMGO and NAGR were against this, but I'm for it

Why would they be against it? RMGO doesnt surpise me since his association with ****smoke.


Also, link is fixed [Beer]

[ChunkyMonkey]

Why would they be against it?


Also, link is fixed [Beer]

I am against anything that transfer power from the State to the Federal govt. This law will allow the fed to ban someone from carrying nationwide, will it not?

[DD977GM2]

I am against anything that transfer power from the State to the Federal govt. This law will allow the fed to ban someone from carrying nationwide, will it not?

I can agree with you.

Then they should treat it like drivers license. Making it legal to CCW in any state
that have permits etc. The feds dont control the DL and who can and cant have one do they? (serious question not being sarcastic)

[ghettodub]

I can agree with you.

Then they should treat it like drivers license. Making it legal to CCW in any state
that have permits etc. The feds dont control the DL and who can and cant have one do they? (serious question not being sarcastic)

Good question and point.

There's one thing on this link that I think covers that, but I'm not sure

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003


Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

[ghettodub]

This is what RMGO/NAGR put out, and to me, it looks like their typical stuff that made me unsubscribe to everything they send

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/trojan-horse-moves-forward/

[glockedandloaded]

I am against anything that transfer power from the State to the Federal govt. This law will allow the fed to ban someone from carrying nationwide, will it not?

exactly. this is a Trojan horse. WTF are we thinking its a good thing to give hte feds more power? [Rant1]

[sniper7]

While I like the idea as I probably travel as much as anyone here...I don't like the open endedness this legislation provides. Attachments could include awb or mag capacity limits training requirements bogus fees or upgrade or recurrent training.
Nothing is cut and dry with the feds.

[Jer]

Oh noes! Don't you know what this means guys?!? The feds will be able to limit or void our CCW permits the same way they did our state issued driver's licenses after they made it so other states had to honor them when traveling into those states! We're all screwed! Tin foil hats for everyone!!

Seriously though, this is a good thing regardless of what the RMGO and NAGR are peddling as far as scare tactics to raise more funds. These are county issued, state permits that have no approval or control by the feds. The law will not affect that at all and serves only to extend the scope of these permits that are issued by requiring other states to honor them if they themselves issue permits to their residents. This is something that shouldn't required the feds to even get involved in but since states want to be pricks about it for no reason then here we go. Before long it will be the same as driver's licenses where people don't even think about it whenever they travel out of state which is how it should be.

[glockedandloaded]

mark my words, this will have a mag limit added to it

[DOC]

I'll tell you if its a POS anti gun bill or not. Did Degett that fat liberal vote for it? Are the rest of the gun grabbers that have no place in power supporting it?

[glockedandloaded]

FYI any one can add anything to this bill

[roberth]

I am against anything that transfer power from the State to the Federal govt. This law will allow the fed to ban someone from carrying nationwide, will it not?

Me too.

This is just another violation of the 2nd amendment in a different way. We shouldn't need any 'crat to declare us eligible for concealed carry, open carry, NFA. All we need are the locals to vet us for felonies.

[Jer]

Me too.

This is just another violation of the 2nd amendment in a different way. We shouldn't need any 'crat to declare us eligible for concealed carry, open carry, NFA. All we need are the locals to vet us for felonies.

Yeah, I agree. We shouldn't need it but the sad fact is we do. Just like we shouldn't need to fight for our 2nd amendment rights but if we don't, who will?

[glockedandloaded]

also in the bill, the one that just passed. is funds for a study on the effect if internet gun sales

[Tweety Bird]

I think it's a Trojan Horse. Or maybe just a Trojan. Either way, I think we're screwed by this in the future.

I'm against ANYTHING that gets the Feds involved in this sort of thing. Like was said above, the next part of this "sensible" legislation will be mag limits, training requirements, qualification based on make/type/serial number (just saw a New Yorker's gun permit at the show today; it ain't a pretty thing).

I don't think comparing it to the DL is a valid point. There isn't a huge lobby to ban cars from law-abiding people.

No tinfoil hat here. I just don't trust the sewer rats in DC.

[Jer]

I don't think comparing it to the DL is a valid point. There isn't a huge lobby to ban cars from law-abiding people.

You're right, it's not a valid point because only one is protected by the US Constitution as an inalienable right. Hint: It's not driving.

[CMP_5.56]

Let's out it this way, if one sentence contains the words "federal government" and "my gun rights", then it can't be good. This can be amended in anyway shape or form after passing. Which means it could change into anything the world by the time it goes into affect.

Anything giving federal government any control of firearms in any way, shape, or form, is absolutely wrong.

[KevDen2005]

I'm against fed control, but it looks like a good idea. I would seriously like to see the ability for CCW to be valid in any state just like a DL. It is ridiculous that people have to know 50 different sets of gun laws before traveling and for the right to protect themselves. I'm all for something like this as long as it's still state issued.

[Tweety Bird]

I'm against fed control, but it looks like a good idea. I would seriously like to see the ability for CCW to be valid in any state just like a DL. It is ridiculous that people have to know 50 different sets of gun laws before traveling and for the right to protect themselves. I'm all for something like this as long as it's still state issued.

Wait just a damn minute.

The only way you're going to force all 50 states to have the same gun laws would be for the Feds to mandate those laws.

Is that what you want?

If so, you'll probably be pretty happy with this bill because that's where it'll likely lead.

[Tweety Bird]

You're right, it's not a valid point because only one is protected by the US Constitution as an inalienable right. Hint: It's not driving.

True enough. But please, don't make the assumption that something has to be written somewhere in the Constitution in order for it to be a "right". The 10th Amendment says so.

[sniper7]

You're right, it's not a valid point because only one is protected by the US Constitution as an inalienable right. Hint: It's not driving.

But there also isn't major organizations, other countries and major groups or people who cry bloody murder at the sight of a car. They love their prius and don't want to ban cars.

[Inconel710]

It's amazing to me how many people on the Internet believe what ever scare mongering BS they hear, but never bother to check the FACTS. If you ever want to find out what's really in a bill www.thomas.gov (http://www.thomas.gov) is your source. If you go there and search for the bill HR 822 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:) you'll find there are no magazine restrictions included, no assault weapons ban, no study of internet gun sales or any of this other BS running around. Now I understand some folks get all their exercise by jumping to conclusions and making ASSumptions, but please check the facts every now and then. You'll be able to save your tin foil for cooking.[Luck]

For everyone too lazy to click on the link above, here's the text of HR 822 as of today 30 Oct. 2011.



112th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 822
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 February 18, 2011


Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) 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 2011'.SEC. 2. FINDINGS.The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns. SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[ChunkyMonkey]

It's amazing to me how many people on the Internet believe what ever scare mongering BS they hear, but never bother to check the FACTS. If you ever want to find out what's really in a bill www.thomas.gov (http://www.thomas.gov) is your source. If you go there and search for the bill HR 822 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:) you'll find there are no magazine restrictions included, no assault weapons ban, no study of internet gun sales or any of this other BS running around. Now I understand some folks get all their exercise by jumping to conclusions and making ASSumptions, but please check the facts every now and then. You'll be able to save your tin foil for cooking.[Luck]

For everyone too lazy to click on the link above, here's the text of HR 822 as of today 30 Oct. 2011.

If you read correctly, everyone's concern is about Federal takeover. Dept. education started from a simple bill of standardized test so your State funded college diploma is good for 50 States too.

[Monky]

But anything they give us is bad...! Money for Roadways, education, parks... Oh god... they must have cameras set up at Pawnee to put us all into a database!


OH THE HUGEMANATEE! [Coffee]

[ChunkyMonkey]

But anything they give us is bad...! Money for Roadways, education, parks... Oh god... they must have cameras set up at Pawnee to put us all into a database!


OH THE HUGEMANATEE! [Coffee]

You mean how the tax Dollars could have stayed in Colorado instead?

[SA Friday]

This is all moot. This passed a PANEL. It will never pass the house as a whole.

Personally, I hope it dies on the vine. Reciprocity covers all the states I want to travel to. The rest can die a slow and painful socialism death. Short of a few SCOTUS rulings, the federal government has shown since 1934 that when they involve themselves with firearms they will be restricting in nature. The only thing I want them doing when it comes to firearms is repeal the GCA and NFA. Then they can politely step out of ever restricting the 2nd again.

[Tweety Bird]

But anything they give us is bad...! Money for Roadways, education, parks... Oh god... they must have cameras set up at Pawnee to put us all into a database!


OH THE HUGEMANATEE! [Coffee]

The Sewer Rats of DC also gave us:

The TSA
The Patriot Act
The EPA
The IRS
The Department of Energy
The Department of Education
And on and on and on.

I'm not saying everything that all of these things do is bad (I'm sure I could find SOMETHING good in each of them if I looked hard enough, though the task might prove difficult).

But any time you set up a Federal program, the things that follow are huge bureaucracies that need more and more money, more and more people, more and more real estate and more and more legislation/red tape to justify their existence.

Remember what John Dingell said about healthcare reform. “The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Bills like these are sort of like jobs programs for the Sewer Rats union.

I have read the bill. But I just don't trust 'em because once the law is in place, revisions become easy to do on the sly.

[SA Friday]

I have read the bill. But I just don't trust 'em because once the law is in place, revisions become easy to do on the sly.

they won't wait that long. By the time it will get to a vote, there will be at least a half dozen changes to it to appease hard votes to try to get it through the house and it simply will be another bill corrupted into something it wasn't meant to be.

Think about it... There are what five or six states with mag restrictions and the are not all the same amounts. How do you deal with this in this bill? There are at least two states with ammo restrictions too. Then there are training restrictions. So, is this bill going to address these differences? If it does, then I guarantee you it will involve restriction and not repeal. if I remember correctly, one or more states dictate that CCW guns have to be trained with and then designated the only gun they can CCW with and the serial number is on the permit and in state retained paperwork (NC if I remember right, but I could be wrong on that).

Not all states have the same CCW permit format. Will this bill address this? What will be standardized in a CCW permit to control forgery? This MUST be directive to the issuing states on CCW format. And while we are on the subject, will this standardize approval authorities? This scares me the most actually. Next thing you know all state CCW laws are null and void and this turns into a bill to make Dept of CCW offices in every state.

I just dont see this being left simplistic and non-intrusive.

[Inconel710]

they won't wait that long. By the time it will get to a vote, there will be at least a half dozen changes to it to appease hard votes to try to get it through the house and it simply will be another bill corrupted into something it wasn't meant to be.

They already tried amending the bill in committee and it failed. In the full House, at least, I don't think they'll be any more successful. The Senate is another problem, but I think we've got the votes to kill the thing it they are successful getting something heinous put into the bill.


Think about it... There are what five or six states with mag restrictions and the are not all the same amounts. How do you deal with this in this bill? There are at least two states with ammo restrictions too. Then there are training restrictions. So, is this bill going to address these differences? If it does, then I guarantee you it will involve restriction and not repeal. if I remember correctly, one or more states dictate that CCW guns have to be trained with and then designated the only gun they can CCW with and the serial number is on the permit and in state retained paperwork (NC if I remember right, but I could be wrong on that).

I know you say you read the bill, but it's clear to my reading that you will have to follow the CCW laws of the state you are in while carrying, just like you have to follow the driving laws. So if one state doesn't not permit carry while in a business that serves alcohol, you will have to honor that restriction. You're not getting a CCW in the state (like TX) so you're not required to pass their testing requirements - just like you don't have to take a driving test when you cross state lines. HR 822 says they have to honor your permit regardless of the differences in training requirements.


Not all states have the same CCW permit format. Will this bill address this? What will be standardized in a CCW permit to control forgery? This MUST be directive to the issuing states on CCW format. And while we are on the subject, will this standardize approval authorities? This scares me the most actually. Next thing you know all state CCW laws are null and void and this turns into a bill to make Dept of CCW offices in every state.

Not all states have the same drivers license format either. So far the bill is NOT directive. I expect, if it passes, the states will sort out standardization issues without federal help. Most states already accept other states CCW permits and there's no problems. NY, NJ, CA, MD, DC, CT, and MA will try to muck things up, but they'll still have to honor the law.


I just don't see this being left simplistic and non-intrusive.

Well, so far it IS simple and non-intrusive. Why not support the bill as written? Let your congress critter know how you feel and hope for the best.

Having lived in the People's Republic of Maryland, I would love to see this bill rammed up theirs and the District of Columbia's rear ends.[Beer]

[KevDen2005]

Wait just a damn minute.

The only way you're going to force all 50 states to have the same gun laws would be for the Feds to mandate those laws.

Is that what you want?

If so, you'll probably be pretty happy with this bill because that's where it'll likely lead.

States all make up their own traffic laws and not all of them are exactly alike. Obviously that isn't what I want and you would know this by reading the very first part of my post.

[Tweety Bird]

You guys have to quit using the DL analogy because it doesn't work. Forget the 2A for the moment; there aren't huge numbers of people and large sums of money out there trying to ban auto ownership or driving. When was the last time you saw a Brady Bunch type of organization trying to ban driving? What I'm saying here is that if there's a Fed law that requires reciprocity of conceal carry permits, there WILL be standardization because the anti-gun lobby will be pushing HARD to amend this law. And even if standardization is done amongst the states, do you really think CA or the city of Chicago are going to relax their laws? If some Fed mandate forces the standardization, do you think the laws here will remain in force, or will they get tighter?

I'm tellin' ya, this will lead to bad things. We'll just have to disagree on this issue.

You guys say what you want. I don't trust the Sewer Rats. But if this passes (doubtful), 5 or 10 years from now when Colorado has to amend its conceal carry laws to match those of CA or NY, I'll be the first to say, "I told you so."

[Byte Stryke]

I Fear Change!



[rofl1]

[mcantar18c]

Has anyone here seen a single instance where the feds have helped us with firearms laws?

It's DOA anyways... it will never pass through the Senate. Passage in the house will be nothing more than symbolic.
But, ask yourself a couple questions:

1. Do we want to acknowledge that the federal government has the right to regulate guns and CCW in particular?
2. Do we want to further erode state's rights?

People need to make up their mind. Either we want a big federal government making all the rules and solving all our problems or we don't. I avoid states that don't let me CCW and spend my money in places that do. I read the Bill of Rights in its original intent of limiting the federal government and want the feds to stay out of state and local matters.
If they absolutely must get involved, I'd rather it be in the form of DOJ going after states and localities for infringing the 2nd... though that'd never happen under this administration.

[Sharpienads]

Has anyone here seen a single instance where the feds have helped us with firearms laws?

It's DOA anyways... it will never pass through the Senate. Passage in the house will be nothing more than symbolic.
But, ask yourself a couple questions:

1. Do we want to acknowledge that the federal government has the right to regulate guns and CCW in particular?
2. Do we want to further erode state's rights?

People need to make up their mind. Either we want a big federal government making all the rules and solving all our problems or we don't. I avoid states that don't let me CCW and spend my money in places that do. I read the Bill of Rights in its original intent of limiting the federal government and want the feds to stay out of state and local matters.
If they absolutely must get involved, I'd rather it be in the form of DOJ going after states and localities for infringing the 2nd... though that'd never happen under this administration.

^^This^^

If the federal government really wanted to do something useful, they would repeal any law that infringed on 2A (or probably any law that has anything to do with firarms) and leave gun laws up to the states. I would like to see every state reciprocate CCW permits, but I do not want the federal government to mandate it.

[Jer]

To those who say this isn't like DL it absolutely is. It's a county issued state permit to do something. Each state sets it's own laws which you MUST obey when you're in that state but your permit is still relevant w/o any further steps. The federal government said it was imperative for each and every state to recognize other state's driving permits. The federal government doesn't mandate what is or isn't required to have said permit but most states require about the same thing. We don't have massive federal oppression of this permit to have this made uniform either.

To those who say they don't want the federal government involved and this isn't what the federal government is responsible for I disagree. Completely. You talk about states rights as if it somehow is above the individual's rights. This is EXACTLY what the federal government was created for... to protect the individual's constitutional rights against the power of the state government. This is EXACTLY what we're talking about here because it's bad enough we're required to apply for and qualify for a permit to conceal and carry a firearm. Let's brush past that fact for a moment here since it's an entirely other topic. This is a bill at the federal level that will return the INDIVIDUAL's rights back to them by saying 'Hey state, if you allow your citizens to have a CCW permit then you MUST allow those who have obtained the permit from their own state the same rights in our state when traveling to your state.' which is something some states can't seem to figure out on their own. You still can't carry within the city limits of Chicago and others who have chosen to not allow it as well as schools bars or whatever that state has set as a law so this won't change that. It's up to the individual to know what those laws are of the state they're traveling to and obey them just like operating a motor vehicle. Listen, I'm all for states rights but we're talking about individual rights that are protected by the individual and have been taken away for far too long. What is the other option if not using the federal government for what it was put in place for?

[DOC]

Anyone that thinks a CCW permit should be like or isn't the same as a DL. Think about all the trouble one has to go through to get a DL and Register your car. And think of the punishments that are given out if you don't comply 100%. Do you really want that for your guns? And do you see the .gov doing it any different because its guns? I don't and I don't see them changing it one bit.
If it was a national permitless CCW with no attachments I would support it. That way it would work and there would be no reason to mess with it later on.
Make it an Amendment to the constitution. Like the second one after the one barring the congress from making laws against free speech.

[roberth]

To those who say this isn't like DL it absolutely is. It's a county issued state permit to do something. Each state sets it's own laws which you MUST obey when you're in that state but your permit is still relevant w/o any further steps. The federal government said it was imperative for each and every state to recognize other state's driving permits. The federal government doesn't mandate what is or isn't required to have said permit but most states require about the same thing. We don't have massive federal oppression of this permit to have this made uniform either.

To those who say they don't want the federal government involved and this isn't what the federal government is responsible for I disagree. Completely. You talk about states rights as if it somehow is above the individual's rights. This is EXACTLY what the federal government was created for... to protect the individual's constitutional rights against the power of the state government. This is EXACTLY what we're talking about here because it's bad enough we're required to apply for and qualify for a permit to conceal and carry a firearm. Let's brush past that fact for a moment here since it's an entirely other topic. This is a bill at the federal level that will return the INDIVIDUAL's rights back to them by saying 'Hey state, if you allow your citizens to have a CCW permit then you MUST allow those who have obtained the permit from their own state the same rights in our state when traveling to your state.' which is something some states can't seem to figure out on their own. You still can't carry within the city limits of Chicago and others who have chosen to not allow it as well as schools bars or whatever that state has set as a law so this won't change that. It's up to the individual to know what those laws are of the state they're traveling to and obey them just like operating a motor vehicle. Listen, I'm all for states rights but we're talking about individual rights that are protected by the individual and have been taken away for far too long. What is the other option if not using the federal government for what it was put in place for?

I am going to think on this. Really good argument Jer.

[Jer]

Anyone that thinks a CCW permit should be like or isn't the same as a DL. Think about all the trouble one has to go through to get a DL and Register your car. And think of the punishments that are given out if you don't comply 100%. Do you really want that for your guns? And do you see the .gov doing it any different because its guns? I don't and I don't see them changing it one bit.
If it was a national permitless CCW with no attachments I would support it. That way it would work and there would be no reason to mess with it later on.
Make it an Amendment to the constitution. Like the second one after the one barring the congress from making laws against free speech.

Now you want to make an amendment to the constitution? Good luck with all that. We can't even agree as 2nd amendment lovers the best way to pass a bill that's completely pro-2nd amendment yet you think we're ready to write an amendment tot he US Constitution? C'mon people! This is just crazy. Let's focus on the small battles such as this before we try to win the entire war.

I love the people who are saying 'Don't give me too many freedoms or liberties or that might be used against me later to take some away.' Seriously?!? Tell you what, return all my liberties tomorrow that have been taken away over the decades in the name of security and let me fight to keep them. As it is we're fighting to keep what we have so why in the heck are we battling amongst ourselves when a bill is presented to help return some of those liberties? All this bill serves is to require states to recognize the individual's right to conceal carry. This isn't regulated or controlled one bit at the federal level as it will still be up to individual states as to their specific laws pertaining to this as they currently do and always have.

This bill does NOT require a federal CCW permit. It simply requires states that already issue them to their residents to recognize the permits in good standing held by residents of other states. Period. Where in that do you see federal government regulation? The fear mongering on this one is out of control. No wonder we can't manage to maintain our rights as a society when the people who wish to take them away are FAR better organized on an end-game.

[TFOGGER]

To those who say this isn't like DL it absolutely is. It's a county issued state permit to do something. Each state sets it's own laws which you MUST obey when you're in that state but your permit is still relevant w/o any further steps. The federal government said it was imperative for each and every state to recognize other state's driving permits. The federal government doesn't mandate what is or isn't required to have said permit but most states require about the same thing. We don't have massive federal oppression of this permit to have this made uniform either.

To those who say they don't want the federal government involved and this isn't what the federal government is responsible for I disagree. Completely. You talk about states rights as if it somehow is above the individual's rights. This is EXACTLY what the federal government was created for... to protect the individual's constitutional rights against the power of the state government. This is EXACTLY what we're talking about here because it's bad enough we're required to apply for and qualify for a permit to conceal and carry a firearm. Let's brush past that fact for a moment here since it's an entirely other topic. This is a bill at the federal level that will return the INDIVIDUAL's rights back to them by saying 'Hey state, if you allow your citizens to have a CCW permit then you MUST allow those who have obtained the permit from their own state the same rights in our state when traveling to your state.' which is something some states can't seem to figure out on their own. You still can't carry within the city limits of Chicago and others who have chosen to not allow it as well as schools bars or whatever that state has set as a law so this won't change that. It's up to the individual to know what those laws are of the state they're traveling to and obey them just like operating a motor vehicle. Listen, I'm all for states rights but we're talking about individual rights that are protected by the individual and have been taken away for far too long. What is the other option if not using the federal government for what it was put in place for?

The only problem I find with this analogy is that traffic laws are substantially uniform nationwide, while CCW laws are vastly different from one city to another, let alone one state to another. Imagine how jacked up the traffic laws would be if the state you lived in required only 2 headlights, but one of the states you planed to drive through required 3, and the next state over limited you to one, but it must be on at all times while driving. If there is going to be universal reciprocity on CCW, then the CCW laws nationwide would need to be substantially uniform, and the only way that is going to happen is if the federal government codifies the regulations, which CAN"T be good for firearms owners, as the only way the nanny states will sign on is if it meets their restrictive criteria. There is a whole set of federal regulations that govern virtually every aspect of vehicle construction and safety, licensing (especially commercial), road construction criteria, lighting, signage, and on and on and on. If you don't think this has created a huge bureaucracy, I'll point out USDOT, EPA, NHTSA, and others as diverse as the Commerce Department and Department of Defense, that all have some influence over the simple act of driving your car,even if you never leave your home state.

[Jer]

The only problem I find with this analogy is that traffic laws are substantially uniform nationwide, while CCW laws are vastly different from one city to another, let alone one state to another. Imagine how jacked up the traffic laws would be if the state you lived in required only 2 headlights, but one of the states you planed to drive through required 3, and the next state over limited you to one, but it must be on at all times while driving. If there is going to be universal reciprocity on CCW, then the CCW laws nationwide would need to be substantially uniform, and the only way that is going to happen is if the federal government codifies the regulations, which CAN"T be good for firearms owners, as the only way the nanny states will sign on is if it meets their restrictive criteria. There is a whole set of federal regulations that govern virtually every aspect of vehicle construction and safety, licensing (especially commercial), road construction criteria, lighting, signage, and on and on and on. If you don't think this has created a huge bureaucracy, I'll point out USDOT, EPA, NHTSA, and others as diverse as the Commerce Department and Department of Defense, that all have some influence over the simple act of driving your car,even if you never leave your home state.

If you think they're uniform nationwide then you need to travel by car more because they vary greatly from state to state. Hell, even the interstate system (built by the federal government) has varying laws from state to state and you can be on the same highway driving through three states and have three different speed limits.

Now, to address the part in bold above. Why would this HAVE to be this way? States are free to set their own speed limit or remove them entirely which has even been tried by a few states. Keep in mind that's on federally built Interstate highways. This takes me back to my comparison of CCW to driving permits because individual states issue and control these w/o the hand of the federal government. They determine who can and can't drive and even what infractions can take away and how long that's taken away and what is done to get it back as well as a myriad of things I won't get into here. Suffice it to say that this comparison is closer than some want to admit. It also is a great example of how the federal government requiring states honor reciprocity across the board served to lift the individual's rights above that of the government to govern against this and all w/o needing to intervene in a bad way later on.

Even if the Feds decided they needed to regulate these states laws on firearms it wouldn't be part of this bill it would require another act of congress and how well do you think that would do? Comparing to DL again what if tomorrow the federal government said they could govern driving permits better and they wanted an act of congress to take control of this. How well do you think that would play out? I'm pretty sure we can ALL agree that allowing the federal government to control who gets CCW permits and how would be a BAD thing and there's no way such an act would pass. Let's take this bill for exactly what it reads rather than saying what 'could' happen even though it wont. Fight one battle at a time and right now this is one battle we can win that will help advance our war against those who wish to take away our rights.

The drivers permit comparison to conceal carry permit is valid because that's exactly what this bill would do for CCW that it did so long ago for driving permits. It would require states that grant permits to carry to their residents to honor the permits of those from other states exactly as it did with drivers permits. States and cities are still free to tell you how this plays out the same as their own residents but they can no longer put different laws on those who live in-state compared to those from out-of-state. In other words, here's our laws... if you have a permit from our state or another they are all the same. Just like drivers permits.

[Sharpienads]

Can somebody point out to me in the constitution where congress has the authority to pass this law?