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; The US House has already passed a version of the bill that would require states that issue CC permits honor the permits of other states. ...

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616

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

    The US House has already passed a version of the bill that would require states that issue CC permits honor the permits of other states. This legislation is now before the US Senate. My sense is that the US Senate is not as "pro-gun" as is the House. However, I personally support this legislation and have already contacted my state senators.

    NRA-ILA | Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation Introduced in U.S. Senate
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    This is where it is going to get shut down. Even if it does manage to pass, do you really think the big O is going to sign it?

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    From the article: "S. 2188, introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin III (D-WV),"

    I'm unsure if that means this has gotten out of committee or if this is actually old news.
    Anyone know the next step?

    And, watch all the hypocrites who talk big for gun owner rights vote against this. Its going to be "fun."

    My own view is that there could well be even a veto proof majority for this in The Senate, but I'm not holding my breath.
    Its an election year. Never know what goes on in the minds of the crittes.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    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. #4
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    I have a question about this. I apologize if it has been asked before. If this passes and one lives in an area that by default is no-issue on permits such as San Francisco, but the state overall does have a permit program in place, does that mean one could go to a neighboring state and get a permit so that you could carry in your home town?
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Hopyard,

    Not every pro-2A senator or constituent is for this National Reciprocity. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) wrote a letter to the mayor of Boston explaining his opposition to the bill on the basis of states' rights:
    As you know, I support the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I also believe that individual states should be allowed to decide what constitutes safe and responsible gun ownership so long as it does not violate that basic constitutional right.

    Under the proposed House legislation, a national concealed carry reciprocity amendment would obligate states like Massachusetts to recognize that concealed carry permits of other states, even if the bearer of that permit does not meet the requirements established by Massachusetts to receive such a concealed carry permit. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts. Therefore, if H.R. 822 or similar legislation comes before the Senate, I will vote no.
    Many on this forum are in agreement with the senator.
    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)

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Hopyard,

    Not every pro-2A senator or constituent is for this National Reciprocity. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) wrote a letter to the mayor of Boston explaining his opposition to the bill on the basis of states' rights:


    Many on this forum are in agreement with the senator.
    I don't want to start another long, drawn-out argument on this issue, but I am just at a loss as to what other amendments states can regulate...
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array Elk Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I don't want to start another long, drawn-out argument on this issue, but I am just at a loss as to what other amendments states can regulate...
    Ahhh any state that that requires training to carry a gun or have a permitt to carry a gun is regulating 2A. Training should not be a requirement for exercising your right. It should not cost a single dime either.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    This is a state rights issue. SCOTUS has decided TWICE that concealed carry is NOT covered under the second amendment. First in 1897 with Roberston v. Baldwin..... and recently in 2008 with the DC v. Heller decision being one of them. Whether you like that or not, it is a legal decision that SCOTUS made. So that being said, I agree with Senator Brown. So your opinion that this is covered under the Second is just that, an opinion. Because in a legal court, your opinion would be trumped by the legal decisions of SCOTUS. But continue on at a loss.

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    I have a question about this. I apologize if it has been asked before. If this passes and one lives in an area that by default is no-issue on permits such as San Francisco, but the state overall does have a permit program in place, does that mean one could go to a neighboring state and get a permit so that you could carry in your home town?
    Adric, the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’, as passed to the senate has a strange wording that maintains the status of citizens that can't get permits in their own state of residence from carrying in their own state of residence:
    ‘‘(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
    H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one’s residence.


    The resolution does nothing for many Americans in states that won't issue a permit for self defense (New York, Illinois, California...).
    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)

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array MrBuckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Down Incognito
    Posts
    5,662
    Nice to dream some.
    Can't believe Big Harry would take action on it.

    old BO would not sign anyways.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    I have a question about this. I apologize if it has been asked before. If this passes and one lives in an area that by default is no-issue on permits such as San Francisco, but the state overall does have a permit program in place, does that mean one could go to a neighboring state and get a permit so that you could carry in your home town?
    I read it as this. The law would require states that issue permits (or do not prohibit CC as in Vermont) would recognize a permit issued by any other state. However, "where" you could carry would still be restricted (e.g., in a church, establishment that serves alcohol, college campus, etc.). Since local restrictions would still apply, it would seem that reciprocity would NOT allow you to CC in San Francisco if that is a no-carry zone. This is NOT a legal opinion, just a personal one.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,570
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    This is a state rights issue. SCOTUS has decided TWICE that concealed carry is NOT covered under the second amendment. First in 1897 with Roberston v. Baldwin..... and recently in 2008 with the DC v. Heller decision being one of them. Whether you like that or not, it is a legal decision that SCOTUS made. So that being said, I agree with Senator Brown. So your opinion that this is covered under the Second is just that, an opinion. Because in a legal court, your opinion would be trumped by the legal decisions of SCOTUS. But continue on at a loss.
    Well, less until the 1950s, racial segregation was legal in spite of amendments to the contrary... just because the court decides a certain way on an issue does not make their ruling correct... the court's ruling is also an opinion; a set of opinions of men and women, hence why decisions are rarely unanimous...
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    the court's ruling is also an opinion; a set of opinions of men and women, hence why decisions are rarely unanimous...
    Incorrect. Marbury v. Madison 1803. Courtesy of john Marshall.

    The Supreme Court's decisions are always final unless they agree to rehear a case, which rarely happens. The Supreme Court is the final authority on federal and constitutional law in the United States; there is no further avenue of appeal.

    There are only two ways in which a Supreme Court decision may be overturned:

    1. The Court may change its own decisions

    2. Congress and the states may effectively overrule a decision by constitutional amendment. In the case of nullified federal laws, Congress may rewrite the law to comply with constitutional requirements.

    When is the last time we had a concon?

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    This is a state rights issue. SCOTUS has decided TWICE that concealed carry is NOT covered under the second amendment. First in 1897 with Roberston v. Baldwin..... and recently in 2008 with the DC v. Heller decision being one of them. Whether you like that or not, it is a legal decision that SCOTUS made. So that being said, I agree with Senator Brown. So your opinion that this is covered under the Second is just that, an opinion. Because in a legal court, your opinion would be trumped by the legal decisions of SCOTUS. But continue on at a loss.
    AZ, I think we possibly are closer then appears on this, however, I also think the cases you cite are somewhat irrelevant
    to the content of HR822. It is a law like thousands of others which put various impositions on states; something well
    grounded in our law and history going back to Washington's day. 822 by itself really doesn't need 2A to exist or be
    lawful. That 2A exists is helpful, but not essentail. There are other grounds on which it can be based and on which it can stand. As for the rulings you cite, all well and good; but they are in terms of what a state may not do to its own citizens--

    Robertson v Baldwin is about a merchant seaman held against his will after signing to serve on a vessel. The state tried to hold him and force him to serve.


    The last paragraph of the ruling is here for your edification.


    Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. U.S. Supreme Court
    ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

    165 U.S. 275

    ROBERTSON et al.
    v.
    BALDWIN.
    No. 334.

    January 25, 1897

    In my judgment, the holding of any person in custody, whether in jail or by an officer of the law, against his will, for the purpose of compelling him to render personal service to another in a private business, places the person so held in custody in a condition of involuntary servitude, forbidden by the constitution of the United States; consequently, that the statute as it now is, and under which the appellants were arrested at Astoria, and placed against their will on the barkentine Arago, is null and void, and their refusal to work on such vessel, after being forcibly returned to it, could not be made a public offense, authorizing their subsequent arrest at San Francisco.


    AZ, are we talking about different cases? What's this got to do with 2A?
    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

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes


    the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... 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.