Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

This is a discussion on Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by suntzu There could be repeals or further restrictions in states that allow CC. It could happen if the legislators of those states ...

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

  1. #121
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    There could be repeals or further restrictions in states that allow CC. It could happen if the legislators of those states don't like the idea of an individual with no formal training carrying a weapon in their state when they require training. States can be fickle and go in different directions in different times. I am not a Constitutional lawyer and niether are most of the experts posting here.
    - Why should this bother anyone? Opponents of this bill in this thread want states to legislate CCW. If the states want to be fickle and change their requirements, let them. Then let the people who live in the states fight to keep their CCW rights. As it stands now, all it takes is another mass shooting to make a state reconsider their gun laws. This bill isn't going to change that in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Boy I hate when someones retort is to nit pick a silly analogy. I can work on a perfect one if you want. You get the idea and the intent from the rest of my post.
    - I thought this was a discussion forum. If you don't want someone to comment, why post the analogy?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,835
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    - Why should this bother anyone? Opponents of this bill in this thread want states to legislate CCW. If the states want to be fickle and change their requirements, let them. Then let the people who live in the states fight to keep their CCW rights. As it stands now, all it takes is another mass shooting to make a state reconsider their gun laws. This bill isn't going to change that in any way.


    - I thought this was a discussion forum. If you don't want someone to comment, why post the analogy?
    Dude, I just gave my opinion. I stated I am not an expert. You can rebut my opinion all day if it makes you happy. You are not going to convince me. I have other reasons but will not state them because:
    1. It won't change anybody's mind.
    2. It has already been said.
    3. I did not say I did not want anyone to comment. I should have used the word annoy instead of hate. But I never said for someone not to comment. I really don;t care if you need to know.

    I just gave my opinion. Chalk it up as a NO for the bill for me

  4. #123
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    Personally, I'd rather take any type of gun rights victories as they come, rather than hoping for something that may not ever happen. Since you're in NH, you're virtually the same exact boat I am.
    They aren't rights victories if you get them via Trojan Horse law from government. Rights don't come from government. We are born with an inalienable right to self defense that in some of its most effective forms, government prohibits.
    The federal government in the unprecedented and expansive role of carry permiter should more empower more citizens than HR822/S2188, a law that would be the super law over state law defining where a permitee may carry. And it would give the federal government power of enforcement of state law in how a permitee may carry. Laws perforce have teeth.
    That is true of this and of any carry issue that the fed touches, 2900 included. The difference is that 2900 really does apply to all states that permit carry at all including states that infringe on the right to self defense of their own citizens in their own state (like me). In abusing my and millions of other citizens' rights, the states cite the 10th amendment as reserving power to them. In infringing on our rights, the feds cite the Commerce Clause as authority. 822 perpetuates these abuses

    That is no victory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    My opinion, it isn't a trojan horse or bad law. The only people who aren't going to like it *if it gets to be law*
    govern NYC, Maryland, and a very few other places. From their perspective it IS bad law. May they be treated to it.
    Who supports 822? In CA (20-33), IL (7-11-1), MD (2-6), NJ (6-7), NY (9-20) for a total of 44 in favor and 77 opposed (36% - 64%). More than a third of the congressmen in those most restrictive and populous states support 822. Maybe this is a case of pro-gun voters' leading the leaders in an election year.

    Or maybe its a case of misleading.
    jem102 likes this.
    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)

  5. #124
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Okay... I've been gone all weekend, and of course this thread has grown two full pages of comments since I left.

    I can't believe how many of you are falling prey to the Anti fear mongering here. This bill doesn't provide any means to 'go after' our guns, gun rights, or carry provisions. Yes yes yes, Congress or some other facet of the Federal government might do so later, but this particular bill doesn't give them any new handholds for climbing that mountain.

    I know some of you dislike the NRA, but they have written a few great pieces on how this law would work, and dispel the myths of 'trampling state's rights'. It might be worth holding your nose and reading NRA-ILA | Exploding the Myths About National Right to Carry (HR 822) as it might help you understand the points I'm not that great at articulating myself.


    I share many of your positions on political ideology as a Libertarian leaning social Conservative, but the fact is that being divided along party or ideological lines in the gun rights debate is wholly counterproductive. The fact is that there are powerful Democrats who are pro gun, even from normally Anti states like Illinois or New York, just like there are powerful Republicans who are anti gun, even from normally Pro states. Yes, both of those are in the minority for their respective parties, but they do exist, and we shouldn't reject their assistance on this issue. Oppose them in the arenas where you disagree, but don't reject this bill because you oppose the representative on other issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    But it certainly does open the door for the Fed's. HR2900 does not, in fact the language of the bill very much spells out the limits of the Federal Gub'mit.
    Why settle for a "Trojan horse" when there is a good and viable alternative?
    Perhaps you and I define "viable" differently. 2900 isn't going anywhere, in spite of the fact that it might be a "better" bill.

    H.R. 2900: Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011 - GovTrack.us
    Status:
    Referred to Committee
    This bill or resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on September 13, 2011, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. The majority of bills never make it past this point.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  6. #125
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post


    Perhaps you and I define "viable" differently. 2900 isn't going anywhere, in spite of the fact that it might be a "better" bill.

    H.R. 2900: Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011 - GovTrack.us
    Could it be, that 2900 isn't going anywhere because nobody is pushing for it? No calls to congressmen? My Congressman is a co-sponsor of the bill, I'm proud to say.

    The NRA is for HR822, and I'm an NRA Life member...but they don't always take the "hard-line" stand I'd like to see from them. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but the NRA was also for the "Gun Control Act of 1968"

    GOA and JPFO are aligning themselves much more with my views and opinions here of late, especially with regard to HR822 and HR2900
    jem102 likes this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #126
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I share many of your positions on political ideology as a Libertarian leaning social Conservative, but the fact is that being divided along party or ideological lines in the gun rights debate is wholly counterproductive. The fact is that there are powerful Democrats who are pro gun, even from normally Anti states like Illinois or New York, just like there are powerful Republicans who are anti gun, even from normally Pro states. Yes, both of those are in the minority for their respective parties, but they do exist, and we shouldn't reject their assistance on this issue. Oppose them in the arenas where you disagree, but don't reject this bill because you oppose the representative on other issues.
    As a libertarian, alarms ring with your calls for collectivism

    The three senatorial sponsors of 2188 are anti-gun Democrats. 822/2188 is an election-year dog-and-pony show for Democrats to trot out a gun bill for their constituents to cover their anti-gun pasts. Slick.

    We need a tenable positon - a house of bricks - not a Trojan Horse filled with enemies of Second Amendment rights.

    822/2188 cites the Commerce Clause for its Constitutional authority and 2900 cites the Second Amendment.

    Subsection (c)(2)(B) of S. 2188 requires that anyone benefiting from carry reciprocity possess “a valid license or permit that ... permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm.” 2188 takes the country backward - away from freedom by requiring law-abiding citizens to go get a permit (to benefit) when their state of residence doesn't require a permit.

    Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and most of Montana are such Constitutional carry states. South Dakota legislature has sent to the governor a bill to enable carry without permit.

    Other states moving in the direction of “constitutional carry” legislation: Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia.

    This is a nation-wide trend that 822/2188 opposes.

    Why rush in when time favors a bill more respective of freedom?
    TX expat likes this.
    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)

  8. #127
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Why rush in when time favors a bill more respective of freedom?
    Because our grandchildren will not live that long. We'll have colonized extrasolar planets before California and New York acknowledge out of state permits, let alone mine. And Constitutional Carry in New Jersey? Blizzard in Hades?
    Hopyard likes this.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  9. #128
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,043
    CA's recognition of out-of-state permits leaving me no benefit in my home state isn't good enough for me and, I doubt, for the powers that be to refrain from challenging this "National Reciprocity" in court. Times are changing, and "National Reciprocity" is bad law from politicians seeking to maintain power and to expand federal power. Independent of the Commerce Clause and politicians who change with the wind, freedom isn't free, but it's freedom.
    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)

  10. #129
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672
    I just shot off another email to my Congressional representatives to not support this bill and I also sent another email to the NRA calling for them to rescind their support of something that has so many potential issues. I urge everyone else who does not like these bills to do the same.
    Pistology likes this.

  11. #130
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,624
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    I just shot off another email to my Congressional representatives to not support this bill and I also sent another email to the NRA calling for them to rescind their support of something that has so many potential issues. I urge everyone else who does not like these bills to do the same.
    We are our own worst enemies. I'd say "unbelievable" but this is obviously happening. Cut our own throats. Great move, not.
    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

  12. #131
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    I just shot off another email to my Congressional representatives to not support this bill and I also sent another email to the NRA calling for them to rescind their support of something that has so many potential issues. I urge everyone else who does not like these bills to do the same.
    Please explain in detail, what these "potential issues" are? Have you read the bill in question? Do you know exactly what is in it? I have read it in its entirety and it is good. What do you perceive as bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by HR822
    HR 822 IH
    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, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    `Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying 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 purposes.
    `(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 preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.
    (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 circumstances 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.
    EDC - M&P Shield .40, Ruger P90, OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

  13. #132
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672
    @ Hop - Yeah, I know. You love the idea of this bill. Move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by accessbob View Post
    Please explain in detail, what these "potential issues" are? Have you read the bill in question? Do you know exactly what is in it? I have read it in its entirety and it is good. What do you perceive as bad?
    Heh. I'm assuming that you are being serious. If so, how about you paste up the actual bill text as passed through the House, not the first draft...

    Actually the more I think about this, the funnier it is. You're asking me if I've read it and know what's in it and you don't even post up the actual bill that passed. That's pretty darn humorous!

  14. #133
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    @ Hop - Yeah, I know. You love the idea of this bill. Move on.



    Heh. I'm assuming that you are being serious. If so, how about you paste up the actual bill text as passed through the House, not the first draft...
    I've read it several times... why don't you tell us what you actually have a problem with? Or are you succumbing to the fear-mongering from the Brady Bunch. The amount of propaganda coming from the anti's that's being repeated on these forums (not just here) astounds me. "Violates states rights" "Just a tool to compromise our rights later" "an excuse for states to repeal their existing CCW legislation"... every one of them originated from the Brady Bunch.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  15. #134
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672
    Really? Fear mongering... You trust the Federal Government to study and audit what is unquestionably a state legal document? The same Federal Government that has banned rifles, magazines, etc. The same Federal Government that continues to do things like Operation Fast and Furious.

    First off, it absolutely isn't within the legal purview of the Federal Government to enact a selective piece of legislation like this. If they were applying their authority based on the Second Amendment, then I would be applauding it wholeheartedly. That's not what they are doing and sorry if you happen to like this little piece of legislation; it's not legal based on the same Constitution that gives you the Second Amendment. I don't believe it's OK to circumvent the Constitution; even when it might 'benefit' me to do so.

    Secondly, if you can get past the legality of it, more of the bill is about 'studies and audits' of out of state permits. What does the Federal Government historically do with anything they study or audit? The enact legislation. I know, I know... You don't want to buy into this. Good for you, but the government typically makes legislative moves one of two ways: 1. They ride the coattails of an event and enact legislation while public opinion is on their side (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act and the Homeland Security Act) or 2. They fabricate a crisis based on whatever they can dig up to use and they use that to help garner public support (Healthcare reform and the gun control legislation that would have come from Operation Fast and Furious, if it hadn't blown up in their faces). I believe that those 'studies and audits' will be the inroad that the Federal Government uses to start enacting legislation over permits. You may not believe it. You may think the Federal Government can't or won't use those audits for some sort Federal laws regarding permits, but here's the deal; you can't guarantee it. You absolutely cannot say, with any credibility anyway, that you know what they won't do with them. That's enough for me, because all I need to know is what they might do with them. I don't want them to have any possible inroad into what each state decides is legal for their citizens.

    You can call it whatever you want; fear mongering, propaganda, or whatever; the fact is that is that it allows the Federal Government some legal inroad into what has been solely state legal function. At best, it waters down the Second Amendment because it specifically allows states to continue to disregard our rights under the Second Amendment. At worst, it's a trojan horse for more legislation and oversight of the Federal Government. You may trust the Federal Government enough to give them a hook into state permits, but I do not.

  16. #135
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,396
    So the full version as passed by the House and sent to the Senate:
    AN ACT
    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. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    `Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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 possess or 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 purposes.
    `(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
    `(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.
    (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) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
    (a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
    (1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
    (2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
    (3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
    (b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
    SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.
    (a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.
    (b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).
    Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.
    Attest:
    KAREN L. HAAS,
    Clerk.
    So, your argument is that they COULD do something bad? For heaven's sake that is ALWAYS possible with ANYTHING they pass. And by the way, as it is written there is NOTHING, NOTHING that sates that they can create anything like a nationwide registry. It only includes the STUDY of how they can verify. And then report back to Congress.

    So your fight is not with this bill. It is with any SUBSEQUENT - I REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS - SUBSEQUENT legislation which might create a registry.
    EDC - M&P Shield .40, Ruger P90, OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 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

astoria oregon gun carry regulation
,

concealed carry reciprocity ruling

,
jim brady quotes reciprocity
,
reciprocal gun law before seante
,
reciprocity law senate ruling
,

s.2188 --national right-to-carry reciprocity act

,

s2188 introduced in the us senate

,
senate passes u.s. reciprocity
,

senate right to carry

,
senator brown on reciprical carry law
,

us senate ccw bill 2012

,

us senators in favor of reciprocal carry

,
what is illinous senator kirks stance on concealed carry ?
,
what states have reciprical agreements with mississippi on the right to carry law?
,
when is the national reciprocity being voted on
Click on a term to search for related topics.