H.R. 578: Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013

[baruffic]

It is not likely to pass, but we need more of this.

Full Text of H.R. 578: Respecting States? Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Fitch]

I sure with that would pass. Then I wouldn't have to go 'naked' when we visit our daughter and family in NYS.

It would even permit carry in IL once they pass their law. I'd love that too. We travel to MN from PA now and then and going through IL is a PITA.

Fitch

[sdprof]

Looks just like HR 511 (?) from last term.

There will be a firestorm of opinions on whether the federal government should even get involved in this. I'm generally in the "for it" camp.

One major thing missing from this, as in the previous versions, is that any permit holder should be exempted from the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act in ANY state they may legally carry. If the feds say the states must honor all permits, then darn it, the feds must also recognize them.

[Hopyard]

It is not likely to pass, but we need more of this.

Full Text of H.R. 578: Respecting States? Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

States Rights and Concealed Carry are mutually exclusive. 2A having been incorporated
means Congress can dictate gun laws to the states, and should, for purpose of protecting
gun owner rights and rights to carry. Its time to get rid of the crazy quilt and have a uniform
system of national law on gun owner rights, interstate carry and transport.

The 10th is what has to now harmed our rights, not enforced them; as it did
with others in the past.

[Grant48]

A bill like this is a strange animal... An out-of-state visitor in highly restrictive state "might" have greater carry rights than a resident.

For example, it's nearly impossible for regular folks to get a concealed carry license in Maryland. However, under such a bill, Maryland would be required to honor a Virginia resident's license, yet Maryland would be under no obligation to make issuance criteria more reasonable to their own residents.

[Pistology]

I don't understand the legalesse. I guess Grant48 is right: it doesn't restore the rights of a Los Angeleno - even one not prohibited from owning and possessing. Why muddy the water with half-way measures?

[1MoreGoodGuy]

We don't need a new national gun law that gives the federal government the power to dictate gun laws to the individual States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[WarMachine]

This is how it should have been from the beginning.

[dling]

I don't want the Federal Goverment in the middle of this. It may sound good going in but then the Feds will use it to tighten regulations across all states. The only role I want to see the Federal Goverment involved in is to ensure "... shall not be infringed" is enforced.

[noway2]

We don't need a new national gun law that gives the federal government the power to dictate gun laws to the individual States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't want the Federal Goverment in the middle of this. It may sound good going in but then the Feds will use it to tighten regulations across all states. The only role I want to see the Federal Goverment involved in is to ensure "... shall not be infringed" is enforced.

While in principle, I am inclined to agree with this sentiment, I don't believe that it fits the unfortunate reality of the situation. To put it another way, the cat has already left the bag and it isn't going back in. This occurred with the SCOTUS rulings that left the door open to "reasonable restrictions", but didn't define reasonable. I am afraid that Hopyard is correct in that unless we proactively take action, on our own terms while we have the chance, to define and limit what constitutes reasonable that it is only a matter of time before our right to keep and bear is widdled away into nothingness, bit by bit. I also think that the reality of the situations is that it is only a matter of time before we have an anti President with the same party controlling Congress. Add in another incident like the last one, and we could be in for a world of hurt. The fear of electoral reprisal is only going to go so far.

We may have dodge the proverbial bullet this time but it is time to stop playing defense and go on the offense to assert and define our rights.

[linuss]

Do I agree with it and want it? Yes.


Does it stand any chance in the current climate with the Dems in the Senate and Obama as Pres? Nope.

[1MoreGoodGuy]

While in principle, I am inclined to agree with this sentiment, I don't believe that it fits the unfortunate reality of the situation. To put it another way, the cat has already left the bag and it isn't going back in. This occurred with the SCOTUS rulings that left the door open to "reasonable restrictions", but didn't define reasonable. I am afraid that Hopyard is correct in that unless we proactively take action, on our own terms while we have the chance, to define and limit what constitutes reasonable that it is only a matter of time before our right to keep and bear is widdled away into nothingness, bit by bit. I also think that the reality of the situations is that it is only a matter of time before we have an anti President with the same party controlling Congress. Add in another incident like the last one, and we could be in for a world of hurt. The fear of electoral reprisal is only going to go so far.

We may have dodge the proverbial bullet this time but it is time to stop playing defense and go on the offense to assert and define our rights.

So because sometime it the future we might have an anti gun President and a same party Congress we should just bite the bullet now and give up our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment Rights???

That is just idiotic so I'll have to decline your offer to try to persuade me to willingly relinquish my Rights. Instead I choose to retain my inherent and unalienable Rights and I will fight to prevent the government from forcing anyone into a position were they are no longer able to freely exercise their inherent and unalienable Rights. I am a slave to no one.

[baruffic]

A bill like this is a strange animal... An out-of-state visitor in highly restrictive state "might" have greater carry rights than a resident.

For example, it's nearly impossible for regular folks to get a concealed carry license in Maryland. However, under such a bill, Maryland would be required to honor a Virginia resident's license, yet Maryland would be under no obligation to make issuance criteria more reasonable to their own residents.

I guess I see this more like a drivers license. If I get my license in Washington I can drive on that license in any of the 50 states, but it is my responsibility to make sure I am aware of what the rules of the road are for what ever state I am in. If I move to move to Oregon I can no longer legally drive on my Washington license, I have to transfer to an Oregon license.

The states still control the rules of the road, speed limit, etc, and I am still subject to those rules while driving in that state. The feds merely enforce my right to drive on those roads. That's what I see this bill doing.

[Grant48]

I guess I see this more like a drivers license. If I get my license in Washington I can drive on that license in any of the 50 states, but it is my responsibility to make sure I am aware of what the rules of the road are for what ever state I am in. If I move to move to Oregon I can no longer legally drive on my Washington license, I have to transfer to an Oregon license.

The states still control the rules of the road, speed limit, etc, and I am still subject to those rules while driving in that state. The feds merely enforce my right to drive on those roads. That's what I see this bill doing.

That would be nice... however, for that analogy to work, standards to obtain a CHL would need to be substantially similar in every state, which they clearly are not.

[1MoreGoodGuy]

I guess I see this more like a drivers license. If I get my license in Washington I can drive on that license in any of the 50 states, but it is my responsibility to make sure I am aware of what the rules of the road are for what ever state I am in. If I move to move to Oregon I can no longer legally drive on my Washington license, I have to transfer to an Oregon license.

The states still control the rules of the road, speed limit, etc, and I am still subject to those rules while driving in that state. The feds merely enforce my right to drive on those roads. That's what I see this bill doing.

Driving is a privilege.

Keeping and bearing Arms is a Right.

There is a big difference between a privilege and a Right.