Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

This is a discussion on Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This is ROUND ONE. It still faces the Senate. Showdown looming on national concealed carry Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is ...

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    539

    Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

    This is ROUND ONE.
    It still faces the Senate.


    Showdown looming on national concealed carry

    Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation that would require all states to honor the concealed carry licenses or permits issued by other states, and the bill – H.R. 822 – is taking fire from certain corners on both sides.

    Showdown looming on national concealed carry - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    This is something you don't want. What the Feds giveth, the Feds taketh away.

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    senate and prez won't let this happen

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array DontTreadOnI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,433
    Noooooo, it should stay governed by state and hopefully does.
    jem102, RoadKill, TN_Mike and 2 others like this.
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

  6. #5
    Member Array Biggie313's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    125
    Im hoping for this. Dont see any other way MD will get to carry

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    This won't affect the current MD process of concealed carry issuing, it will only allow OTHER state residents to carry in your state. So you won't be able to carry but I will..... Ironic huh?
    GoBigOrange and IWLAFART like this.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array GoBigOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Just far enough outside Orlando
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggie313 View Post
    Im hoping for this. Dont see any other way MD will get to carry
    you are being naive if you think this is going to help you. As AZChevy says, this will only allow everyone else to carry in your state except you.

    I am hoping this does not pass.
    jem102, TN_Mike and MadMac like this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,355
    Would be better if they were removing laws governing carry, not adding another FEDERAL law.
    TN_Mike and atctimmy like this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Some guys would complain about about being in the playboy mansion with a pile of playmates trying to convince him that they are the dirtiest of them all because someone served the wrong brand of beer.

    National Reciprocity.

    And you people are complaining because you don't like Congress doing it via the interstate commerce clause?

    Whatever...
    A_D likes this.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array canav844's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    This is something you don't want. What the Feds giveth, the Feds taketh away.
    It's a reciprocity bill, if they take it away then we'd be back to were we are today, it's got nothing to do with federal permits. Reading the actual bill and sources beyond forum posts, the more I learn about the bill itself the less it hurts, and if it's federal controlled as written in the constitution, then the rights shall not be infringed; and those states that are infringing on gun owners rights will finally be forced to acknowledge the Constitution.
    Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
    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, UnitedStates Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    ‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain con7
    cealed firearms
    ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the car10
    rying 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 pur26
    poses.
    ‘‘(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 pre-empt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed fire
    arms.’’.
    (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 cir2
    cumstances 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.
    NRA-ILA :: The TRUTH About H.R. 822<br>The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011"
    NRA-ILA :: The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
    NRA-ILA :: H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act -- Heading to House Floor; Contact your Representative Now!
    phreddy and A_D like this.

    Glock Certified Armorer

  12. #11
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Some guys would complain about about being in the playboy mansion with a pile of playmates trying to convince him that they are the dirtiest of them all because someone served the wrong brand of beer.

    National Reciprocity.

    And you people are complaining because you don't like Congress doing it via the interstate commerce clause?

    Whatever...
    Why? Just because YOUR state is full of liberal idiots who repress the rights of it's citizens, doesn't mean the federal government should force them to do something clearly not covered under the 2d amendment in regards to SCOTUS decisions. This is a states right issue and I choose to live, vote, and pay taxes in a free state. I am sick of these liberal states causing all of these issues and regulations to be passed on their account. Yankees and Californians, ruining this country one law at a time.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,355
    If this is such a great thing for the support of the second amendment, why do they have to specify "concealed" carry? Why not just leave it as carry? Did the second amendment specify concealed is the only way to carry if you want to enjoy the right?

    I'm not against it, just questioning whether this is the way we want it worded.

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Bottom line is this:

    The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states.
    and...

    District of Columbia v. Heller 2008

    "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

    Referring to:

    Robertson v. Baldwin 1897

    the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
    So bottom line is as unfortunate as it is, SCOTUS final word on concealed carry is that it is NOT covered under the USCON so the feds need to STAY OUT OF STATE BUSINESS
    TN_Mike and Hieny like this.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,755
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    If this is such a great thing for the support of the second amendment, why do they have to specify "concealed" carry? Why not just leave it as carry? Did the second amendment specify concealed is the only way to carry if you want to enjoy the right?

    I'm not against it, just questioning whether this is the way we want it worded.
    I suspect that it may have to do with the fact that SCOTUS singled out concealed carry in their list of reasonable restrictions. For some reason, which I truly don't fathom, many on both side of the issue seem to be uptight about the concealed part. There are some that are for it on the basis that it doesn't upset the masses and then there are those that seem to think it is somehow more threatening to have it concealed.

    Edit:
    So bottom line is as unfortunate as it is, SCOTUS final word on concealed carry is that it is NOT covered under the USCON so the feds need to STAY OUT OF STATE BUSINESS
    Unfortunately, and I do think that this is one of those times that SCOTUS really blew it, the only entity that has any possibility of overriding this position is the congress.

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Edit:

    Unfortunately, and I do think that this is one of those times that SCOTUS really blew it, the only entity that has any possibility of overriding this position is the congress.
    Incorrect there are only two ways to override a SCOTUS decision. One is for SCOTUS to override their own decision, which won't happen seeing the 2008 heller decision and second is a Constitutional convention which not only includes congress, but the STATES and the decision is eradicated.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

all state ccw congress
,
ccw bill results
,

ccw congress

,
ccw vote
,
congress and ccw
,

congress ccw

,
congress ccw law
,
congress on ccw
,
congress vote ccw
,
congress vote on conceal carry law
,
countrywide ccw
,
nat'l concealed weapon carry law congress vote ?
,
us house ccw vote
,
us house national ccw vote
,
when will the senate vote on the new ccw bill
Click on a term to search for related topics.