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

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

This is a discussion on H.R. 578: Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 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 ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By 1MoreGoodGuy

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

  1. #1
    Member Array baruffic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pac Northwest
    Posts
    76

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



  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,869
    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
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,157
    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.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,072
    Quote Originally Posted by baruffic View Post
    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.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array Grant48's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    665
    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.

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,180
    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?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,701
    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.
    Tzadik and jem102 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  8. #8
    Member Array WarMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    364
    This is how it should have been from the beginning.

  9. #9
    Member
    Array dling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    436
    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.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,947
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dling View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    303
    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.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,701
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    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.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  13. #13
    Member Array baruffic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pac Northwest
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant48 View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Grant48's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by baruffic View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,701
    Quote Originally Posted by baruffic View Post
    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.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

Sponsored 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

2013 national reciprocity bill
,
hr 578 respecting states' rights and concealed carry reciprocity act
,
il ccw bill 2013
,
il concealed carry
,

illinois concealed carry reciprocity

,
illinois gun reciprocity laws 2013
,
law for federal ccw reciprocity
,

national right to carry reciprocity act 2013

,
reciprocity concealed carry il
,
respecting rights to carry conceal
,

respecting states rights concealed carry

,
what states have conceal carry 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.