Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

National Reciprocity Action Needed

10K views 160 replies 51 participants last post by  JD 
#1 ·
H.B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, was introduced on 2/18 by Rep Stearns (FL-6). To date it has only one co-sponsor, Rep Shuler (NC-11). There has been a lot of give and take on the forums about national reciprocity. If you are on the side that would like to see this bill move forward, it is time for action. As one pro-gun congressional aide said, "...contact everyone you can, and encourage them to write/call/email their rep to sign on to the bill as a cosponsor." Numbers are important.

To find your representative's latest phone number, address, and email you can use this page: Member Web Site Listing (by State) - United States House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 1st Session All you have to write or say is "Please co-sponsor H.B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, introduced on 2/18/11 by Rep. Stearns." If you write, send the letter to your representative's local office if there is one, with a copy to his or her Washington office. If you call or e-mail, contact both the local and Washington offices if you can.

If you live in the states of AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, IN, NC, NY, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, or WI you have representatives on the House Committee on the Judiciary, where this bill has been sent. Most bills die in committee.

For committee members it is not as important for you to live in a district of a representative in your state who is on the committee. The basic message is "Please see that H. B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, introduced on 2/18/11 by Rep. Stearns, gets voted out of the Judiciary committee." A web page where you can get these reps information is Committee Members

After you call/write/email your rep, let's spread this information around and see what happens...
 
See less See more
#17 ·
I would like to have national carry. I do not want the Fed to decide. The Fed needs to be much smaller, and relinquish power back to the states, and the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot
#4 ·
Agreed gents. If the government can mandate national reciprocity, they will get the impression they control everything related to carrying firearms. We don't want that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SARR001 and oneshot
#5 ·
Nope. Pass here as well. I have stated many times that the Federal Government screws up or limits anything it has ever had any bit of control over. I do not want the Federal government to be involved with carry reciprocity at all. Not one bit.

I hope this bill dies before ever seeing the light of day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot
#114 ·
:aargh4:^^^^^^^^^^^No thanks^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:aargh4:

I don't trust:ticking: the NRA OR the Federal Gestapo to have a law on the books that they can amend and change later on when the deem necessary.

There is, to my knowledge no law that was passed that forced all 50 states, the D of C., Puerto Rico, and all US territories, to honor , by reciprocity, other drivers' licenses from visiting states.
They just DO.
Why can't they do that.??
I'm NOT it the camp of Nat'l Reciprocity from the FEDS:hand1:
Nope, no way.:hand1:

If ayone has knowledge of such a law that had to bew passed for drivers to visit other states, show the law, and I 'll stand corrected.:hand5:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chroode
#9 ·
I think you naysayers are wrong. States should give full faith and credit to the relevant legislation of other states. If you can drive a car in 50 states, why can't you carry? OK - I would make an exception for people who go out of their way to get a license in a state in which they do not reside but otherwise if your state licenses you to carry it should be reciprocal with every other state.

Article IV, section 1 of the Constituion has been interpreted to give full F&C to judgements but not necessarily to laws. This was not always the case. We now have a Supreme court that is stacked with conservatives who would like to go back to the "origins" method of interpreting the constitution. If you don't pass something like HB 822 now and get it through this SCOTUS. You will miss an opportunity.

I wrote my rep!
 
#13 ·
I think you naysayers are wrong. States should give full faith and credit to the relevant legislation of other states. If you can drive a car in 50 states, why can't you carry?
Do you realize that the acceptance of driver's licenses is because of an agreement among the states (just like current CCW reciprocity), and NOT because of federal action?

Just wait until the feds decide that there have to be minimum standards for CCW....have to make NYC happy, can't allow Alabama qualificantions to apply in New York or New Jersey....

Sorry, I don't trust the feds.
 
#10 ·
I'm always staggered by those who don't want something good to happen. National reciprocity would be cool. Dump the foolish no saying ideology and get on board with a darn good idea. It IS beyond any doubt the only way we are going to get to be able to travel without a wallet full of different licenses. The sky hasn't come down just because LEOSA passed. The sky didn't fall down when we got the travel law that allows you to put it in the trunk. The sky didn't fall down when FAA/TSA or who ever it was, came up with reasonable rules that allow you to pack it in checked luggage.

As I stated elsewhere, I continue to be amazed by all those who argue AGAINST our real self interests in this matter.
 
#38 ·
I do take exception to those that gripe about the Postal Service.
Where else can you get a letter delivered coast to coast in about a week, for $0.44?
Sure Fed Ex and UPS can do it, but it cost over $5.00. Thats 11 times more!

If I give you a letter to a friend in California and 44 cents would you be willing to hand carry it there for me? I don't think so!
The 44 cent postage stamp is the absolute best deal in the world!

As far as the National Reciprocy law, I think it's a good idea. Why should I have to apply for 3 or 4 different state permits, even though I am not a resident of those states?
 
#12 ·
I don't see this as regulation. What is being regulated? The bill intentionally stays away from anything that would remotely interfere in a state's license procedures or requirements. The feds are simply telling the states to recognize permits from other states. The oorignal interpretation of the Comerce clause was not the current meaning of regulation. It was to "make regular". Certainly making a uniformm procedure amongst the states is "making regular" and not regulation as we currently know it.

This actually dovetails quite well with the current SAF lawsuits currently in the Courts.

Unfortunately even if this passes, it won't help me. I live in Marylandistan.
 
#14 ·
I don’t know why everyone is getting so excited about this, either way.

In the previous congress (111th), the most destructive congress in recent history, there was not one restrictive gun law that even made it out of committee of either chamber. They all died.

Does anyone think with the congress we have today there is a better chance of restrictive gun laws coming out of either chamber?

This isn’t going anywhere.

Chris
 
#22 ·
Individual litigants and judges as always.
 
#20 ·
Federal law needs to read that if you can legally own it then you can legally carry it, but no congress is passing that anytime soon it might mean acknowledging a right. This is however a step in the right direction, well less a step and more a slight lean, it forces states like MA and CA to start to come around to allowing others to carry, and without the extra tax and hassle of needing a dozen permits, you'd only need one to move around the country (out of state shall issue would still cash in on the tax). but it doesn't fix a patch work of where, when, what(I mean you NJ), how you may carry and use. But does clear up a little bit of who can carry. It is also a reasonable measure acknowledging a right, that is likely to pass, it's not as far reaching as it should be but it's a start. Federally recognize the acknowledgment of laws already on the books, and slowly remove restrictions on a state by state basis.

I've lost track of how many states are making moves to allow Constitutional carry, but if it spreads in the next 5 years the way CCW spread over the past decade we could be well on our way toward being allowed to legally carry a firearm across much of the country.
 
#23 ·
I'm not a lawyer, not a constitutional scholar... but isn't this already covered under Article 4 sections 1 & 2 of the Federal constitution?

Article IV
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Aren't the carry permit laws (ar lack thereof) as en-"acted" by the states that currently have them, public acts, that deserve the full faith and credit of each of the other states? I know, or think I do, .... to which law do you give full faith and credit ... Az or IL? therein lies one problem.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States
A federal law which gives privileges to the several state's citizens to carry based on the laws of their state of residence, couldn't hurt, or could it... The majority here seem to think it could hurt. I kinda need convincing either way....
 
#28 ·
I'm not a lawyer, not a constitutional scholar... but isn't this already covered under Article 4 sections 1 & 2 of the Federal constitution?
If it were, would we be having this discussion? We live in the legal world we are in, not the one we wish we were in.

Aren't the carry permit laws (ar lack thereof) as en-"acted" by the states that currently have them, public acts, that deserve the full faith and credit of each of the other states? I know, or think I do, .... to which law do you give full faith and credit ... Az or IL? therein lies one problem.
Yes and no. The reciprocity issue really has little to do with full faith and credit business which speaks to the acts of the judiciary in the various states. That's why a Nevada divorce is a still a divorce in NY. Because a divorce is something done by the courts of the states and not the legislatures.

A federal law which gives privileges to the several state's citizens to carry based on the laws of their state of residence, couldn't hurt, or could it... The majority here seem to think it could hurt. I kinda need convincing either way....
Some here are die hard state's rights conservatives who still think the ante-bellum order should be in effect today. They reject much of the jurisprudence of the last 150 years. Certainly they reject the jurisprudence of the last 60 years. They don't want the Federal government telling the states that they must do anything at all, and national reciprocity as proposed in the law under discussion would be the Feds telling the states that they must recognize licenses issued by other states.

Its funny to me that so many stand up and put their hand over their heart and recite the pledge of allegiance but never catch on to the meaning of the phrase, "one nation indivisible."
 
#24 ·
The patchwork of reciprocity laws has to be brought together in some form. When states get involved in these agreements, the Feds get brought in as well. As a backup, assuming this happens, each and every state should still pass state laws for ConCarry and/or recognize all other state permits. That way, if the Feds do try somethingsneaky, then we can tell them to repeal this bill, and what's left in it's place does the job.
 
#26 ·
DoctorBob and chivvalry,

Yes, we do have a conservative stacked SC.

However.....lets just look back at McDonald.

Both Justices Roberts and Scalia are well known incrementalists. That means they will not side with a decision that makes sweeping changes. Just look at McDonald. A victory that came at a BIG price.

Justice Thomas’ opinion SHOULD have been the majority opinion, but would not have been accepted by Roberts or Scalia. Consequently, we were left with the terribly watered down (insert crappy) majority opinion of Justice Alito.

By his opinion, Alito basically gave us a 5-4 victory rather than a 6-3 defeat.

So think twice about what you think the current makeup of the SC will do. We have two, although conservative, justices who may not necessarily see things as we do.

Chris
 
#27 ·
Just read 822 -
A mountain of work has to be done before you can expect Congress to even toy with passing a bill this simplistic.
There are now such immense differences between how the states view firearm ownership and legislate its regulation; what will be gained from trying to pass a bill that's oblivious to those differences?
State reciprocity is a worthy goal, one well worth working towards - but there is SOOO much work that has to be accomplished first before such a bill can be equitable.
 
#29 ·
I don't know. The bill is pretty straight forward. It directs the states to do something they are already doing under LEOSA.
 
#30 ·
Hopyard - maybe I'm looking too far ahead.
But look at the way it is now - Jersey is a "may-issue-but-don't-even-THINK-about-asking" state. Been that way forever. While PA is the "send-the-money-Monday-CCW-by-Friday" state. How can we introduce 822 in a country where states like this coexist? It just seems like a TON of standarization has to occur before this bill can be considered.
 
#33 ·
Hopyard - maybe I'm looking too far ahead.
But look at the way it is now - Jersey is a "may-issue-but-don't-even-THINK-about-asking" state. Been that way forever. While PA is the "send-the-money-Monday-CCW-by-Friday" state. How can we introduce 822 in a country where states like this coexist? It just seems like a TON of standarization has to occur before this bill can be considered.
And that is exactly what worries many of us. The "standardization" will be at a high and difficult level. We would actually lose ground rather than gain anything.

Ken
 
#31 ·
Pass on this, not so much as this law as for the precedent! !0 years down the road a Prog Tranzi wants a "Common Sense" amendment to regularize CCW. You know of course that that would be built on a MA or CA model!

No Thanks I will pass on this!
 
#36 ·
How is a law that expands gun owner rights be a violation of 2A? Are you willing to wait for that Utopian day when all states have constitutional carry. I'm not, because it won't happen.
 
#34 ·
The proposed law as written looks pretty good to me. It could be better if it got rid of the 1,000 foot school radius, but it doesn't add any requirements to us, just tells the states they have to honor our permits as if they were theirs. The enforcement is real easy, it would happen when individuals filed suit for non-compliance by a state. And it means I wouldn't have to leave my G26 home when I visit my daughter and sister in NY.

I'm in favor of it as written.

Fitch
 
#37 ·
Amazing. The same people who have been bitching about the "Feds" telling the states what kind of guns we can own( Feds stay out of my state gun laws bunch) are now screaming they want the Feds to tell the states where and when we can carry our guns (Feds stick noses in state laws bunch). You want the Feds to regulate firearms or you don't. No gray areas. If they can regulate carry permit recognition they later can regulate carry permit issue. It's called precedence and it will bite us in the rear if we let it pass.

Me, I live in Tennessee. I left Chicago over 20 Years ago and I don't intend to go back. I would rather have Tennessee laws than Illinois laws. FEDS GO HOME!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot
#62 ·
1+++

The STATES are SOVERIGN. They CHOOSE to belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

That means that EACH STATE functions as its OWN COUNTRY except for COMMON DEFENSE and COMMERCE.

The STATES CHOOSE to accept driver licenses but EACH STATE HAS IT'S OWN DRIVING RULES AND RESTRICTIONS. Some states do not recognize other states driver license requirements and will not issue a license to a driver that moves there from another state (FL will not transfer an AL motorcycle license).

If you accept the fed telling the states to accept the gun permits, then that would be like saying they must accept ObamaCare.

I say NO. It would only further diminish the states to make their own decisions. If you do not like the state you live in, then move to a better one or make your voice legally heard through your state representatives.
 
#41 ·
I live in Tennessee. My HCP is good to go in 38 states by state-to-state reciprocity agreements. The states it is not good in either do not issue permits or do not have the same standards for issue ( state law/safety classes and Marksmanship qualification) so Tennessee won't enter into agreement with them.

The only neighboring state I am restricted in is Illinois and they wouldn't honor a HCP if the National Guard troops were occupying the capitol! They never are going to allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed handguns (at least not in Chicago and its environs), regardless of what the USSC says. The Federal Government can't afford the embarrassment of a Federal takeover so the laws and decisions are just so much paper, leaving Chicago to do its own thing. Springfield will follow, so it will reflect throughout the state..

I think the state Attorney Generals need to conclave and come up with mutual standards and reciprocal agreements.

Again, leave the Federal Government out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top