National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

[Rivers]

I think this would be a good thing, especially for CCW in states like CA. Consider that when some states, like CA, play games with shall issue, etc., how can those states justify restricting their own residents when they have to recognize the "shall issue" permits from other states? The political juice held by LE administrators in a shall issue state is already being challenged. This law would vaporize it. When you have a state like CA unable to demonize guns "because they can", it will evolve the popular attitudes. Coupled with the upcoming redrawing of voting districts in CA (so politicos cannot set their own voting blocks), CA could (I say, "could") move into the real world. Forcing states to recognize and accept CCW permits from other states is just like how your driver's license works across state lines.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[atctimmy]

I think we already have a National CCW Statute. It's called the Second Amendment. I hope this law goes down the tubes because I want to keep Congress as far away from my 2A rights as possible.

[GM]

I think this would be a good thing, especially for CCW in states like CA. Consider that when some states, like CA, play games with shall issue, etc., how can those states justify restricting their own residents when they have to recognize the "shall issue" permits from other states? The political juice held by LE administrators in a shall issue state is already being challenged. This law would vaporize it. When you have a state like CA unable to demonize guns "because they can", it will evolve the popular attitudes. Coupled with the upcoming redrawing of voting districts in CA (so politicos cannot set their own voting blocks), CA could (I say, "could") move into the real world. Forcing states to recognize and accept CCW permits from other states is just like how your driver's license works across state lines.

Perhaps you are right and it could be better (at least for a while) for CCW in states like CA, but that is because it already is horrible there. Furthermore, we have to remember that CA and states like it are not the only states in the US.

I think we already have a National CCW Statute. It's called the Second Amendment. I hope this law goes down the tubes because I want to keep Congress as far away from my 2A rights as possible.

Amen to that

[torgo1968]

Something else to remember is that the last attempt was not as close as the vote indicated. A number of legislators withheld their positions until the very end; when they knew that the bill wasn't going to pass, they voted yes. This allowed them to cover themselves both ways. The bill didn't pass, so anti-gun voters would likely not make a big deal of it, while they could point to their yes vote to placate pro-gun voters.

[mwhartman]

I don't know if I want .gov in my business. If they pass this, the antis get a step closer to taking our right to carry altogether.

Amen! Sadly those "folks" seem to want to have their nose in every tent in this country!

[TN_Mike]

I have said it before and I will say it again, I don't care how well it is worded, any involvement by the Federal Government in citizens carrying, ANY involvement, is a bad thing. We need to keep them out of it and keep working to get agreements between all the states. Any time the Federal Government gets into something, either regulating it or making it legal or illegal, they 1.) screw it up, 2.) tax it and 3.0 eventually, if it is related to guns, regulate the hell out of it or just make it illegal.

There is no way that this ends up being a good thing for us if it is passed and signed into law. If Obama signs this, assuming it is passed, you can bet there is something in it that everyone missed that allows him to make carry illegal or something.

[smolck]

I think we already have a National CCW Statute. It's called the Second Amendment. I hope this law goes down the tubes because I want to keep Congress as far away from my 2A rights as possible.

INDEED! I'd go so far as to say most federal politicians don't even know what the 2nd amendment covers.

[GM]

I have said it before and I will say it again, I don't care how well it is worded, any involvement by the Federal Government in citizens carrying, ANY involvement, is a bad thing. We need to keep them out of it and keep working to get agreements between all the states. Any time the Federal Government gets into something, either regulating it or making it legal or illegal, they 1.) screw it up, 2.) tax it and 3.0 eventually, if it is related to guns, regulate the hell out of it or just make it illegal.

There is no way that this ends up being a good thing for us if it is passed and signed into law. If Obama signs this, assuming it is passed, you can bet there is something in it that everyone missed that allows him to make carry illegal or something.

I believe that you definitely got it right

[ThumperACC]

Interesting discussion. I'd really like national reciprocity, but you guys bring up some good points about keeping the Fed out of it altogether.

ThumperACC

[gdkenoyer]

I think we already have a National CCW Statute. It's called the Second Amendment.

I thought that only covered the "right to keep and bear arms", not the right to 'conceal' them about our persons.

And there appears to be legal findings that agree with that (from Wikipedia):

Robertson v. Baldwin
In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------
923 words in all, possibly a record?

Looks fine to me.

[TN_Mike]

I thought that only covered the "right to keep and bear arms", not the right to 'conceal' them about our persons.

And there appears to be legal findings that agree with that (from Wikipedia):

Robertson v. Baldwin
In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------
923 words in all, possibly a record?

Looks fine to me.

Fine. So the 2A covers open carry. The point is, it covers the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons, not just limited to guns).

[Sailor man]

Do you drive in another state? Same thing It is not a federal permit If you say no then never drive in your neighboring state.

[RevolvingMag]

No, this is like granting reciprocity for all states that issue concealed carry permits. So your permit would be good in any state that issues permits to their residents.

Ok. Makes a little more sense now. But, I do have to agree with not liking the Feds. involved with it. Because then they can screw it up. I like the idea of being able to carry in NC, but... I'd rather have to leave it in the car than have the federal government screwing around with my right to carry concealed.

[TheGreatGonzo]

Do you drive in another state? Same thing It is not a federal permit If you say no then never drive in your neighboring state.

Uhhhhmmm....yeah. Insults will definitely win people over to your way of thinking.

So, the federal government forces each state to recognize a license from another state. Ok with that? Welcome to the slippery slope. So, using the same precedent, the federal government now forces your state to recognize a wedding license from another state...no matter who is marrying who. And then attorneys and doctors no longer have to be certified in individual states...the federal government says every state must recognize every other state's medical and legal licences. The list runs on and on and on and on...(sort of like sentences without punctuation).

[Adam42]

My thought is to keep government out of everything, I can't name anything that they do well (except spend other peoples money). They screw up everything they touch, the concept is great, but let private industry be in charge.