National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

[RoyGBiv]

243 co-sponsors.!!
Now we need to win the Senate

There was the national park carry which Obama signed

On May 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 627, the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009," into law. The bill contained an amendment introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from enacting or enforcing any regulations that restrict possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges, as long as the person complies with laws of the state in which the unit is found

The national Park carry rule was shoved down BHO's throat attached to a credit card reform act.. It's not as if he signed it on its own.
Still hurdles to overcome.

[Heartland Patriot]

The real issue is that Congress does have the constitutional authority (article IV, section 1) to pass this law, and the gun grabbers do not like it. They also have the implied authority to set minimum standards in order for licenses to be recognised under this law. What I am afraid of is an amendment to the bill that would require stuff like getting your local sheriff to sign off on your license (effectively making all shall-issue states into may-issue), requiring "mental health screening", renewals every year, listing permitted firearms on the license (make/model/serial), forcing all license holders to qualify with say 1000 rounds per firearm, a federal tax stamp, require liability insurance, and so on. There is a lot of potential damage that can be added to this bill, and we have to be ready to kill it should it get a poison pill. While the gun grabbers are screaming bloody murder over this bill right now, they are also planning to amend it and make it something useful to them.

I got through with a "discussion" on FB with a man who called me a "troll" for not out-and-out supporting this bill. I made it clear that I wasn't against the bill per se, but only worried, as you obviously are, that it could be morphed into something TERRIBLE that would reverse all the hard-earned gains here in Texas (and elsewhere). He simply refused to let it go, so I had to hang it up. He just didn't seem to want to admit that this bill could be used against us or turned into a "poison pill". And the sorts of things you posted above are some of the exact items I worried about myself. It took a while for Mr. Cotton to bring me around to his viewpoint...and that the incremental gains we have made are maybe not where we WANT to be, but are going in the right direction. As each new expansion of the CHL program settles in, and the rivers of mass blood-shed in the streets do not materialize the way the press says they will, it sets the stage for the NEXT step. I'm really ticked that Campus Carry didn't make it through and that I will be done before it has a chance to make it, but at least my right to keep my firearm in my vehicle will be protected when I am done with school and get back to bending wrenches for a living. I'll keep my fingers crossed on this one, but I still have my doubts.

[cheezit]

From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

My position is the 2nd Amendment says all that needs to be said.

and were the issue with this. I fail to see it.

[Jumping Frog]

I made it clear that I wasn't against the bill per se, but only worried, as you obviously are, that it could be morphed into something TERRIBLE that would reverse all the hard-earned gains here in Texas (and elsewhere). He simply refused to let it go, so I had to hang it up. He just didn't seem to want to admit that this bill could be used against us or turned into a "poison pill". And the sorts of things you posted above are some of the exact items I worried about myself. It took a while for Mr. Cotton to bring me around to his viewpoint...

This bill already has one "unintended consequence" that is getting attention in the Ohio forums.

There are people in Ohio who carry on a Florida non-resident license instead of an Ohio license because they do not want their CHL status tied to their SSN, DL, and vehicle plates in the computers. This bill would make their FL license invalid in Ohio. Similarly, a Texas resident carrying on a Florida or Utah license in Texas would suddenly have their license no longer valid in Texas.

Now, we can debate whether we agree with that or not, and personally, I don't worry about being on "the list" as far as state government databases. But this is an example of the federal camel nose under the tent.

‘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.

[Rex B]

This page contains links to a video of the entire subcommittee hearing. It's an hour and 45 minutes long, so I have not had a chance to watch it.

http://volokh.com/2011/09/14/congressio ... spiracy%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[EconDoc]

It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?

We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.

[AEA]

ANOTHER GOOD POINT!

Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al.
I don't even like to see these names in print!

BUT.......again.......The NRA supports it??????? Surely they have considered all of this?????

[boba]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IBTL

[AEA]

WOW.........and I even posted in that earlier thread!

Thanks for the heads up!

Maybe a Mod can merge the threads?

[74novaman]

It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?

We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.

I agree. This is my big worry with this bill as well.

Remember how the Hughes amendment got passed. Slipped into what was supposed to be a firearm owners protection act. Oopps!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... _Amendment

[jimlongley]

Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

"Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."

I don't understand, did he actually use his permit as a holster or hoist of some kind?

Seems to me that he was determined to carry a gun, permit notwithstanding. I wish someone would have mentioned that to him at the hearing.

[C-dub]

It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?

We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.

I think anything the fed tried to impose would end up being an infringement and get shot down by the courts. They aren't trying to make any laws regarding weapons themselves, just forcing states to recognize each others licenses like they do with driver's licenses. If the fed put restrictions or requirements on the driver's licenses I am unaware of them.

I thought I posted something earlier this morning in this thread from my phone, but I guess it didn't make it through. I had mused that we always seem to like it when a state has pre-emption, but now that the fed is trying to have pre-emption we're a bit skeptical. I understand why, but this still seems like a good thing to me.

[EconDoc]

If the feds can force one state to accept another state's CHL, then they have both the authority and a reason to force all states to accept "national standards" on who can have a CHL. If they force "shall issue" that would be very good, but, if they require "may issue with good cause" then it could wipe out 25 years of nationwide progress on CHL in a stroke. My opinion is that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd would try to do, and it would be more difficult to combat if we had nationwide reciprocity by federal law. Think this through and keep in mind that the anti's have already introduce such a nationwide "may issue with good cause" bill in congress.

[mr surveyor]

If the feds can force one state to accept another state's CHL, then they have both the authority and a reason to force all states to accept "national standards" on who can have a CHL. ......

Exactly the way I see this!

[VMI77]

It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?

We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.

You nailed it. That's exactly what will happen. And the anti-gun crowd has already floated the notion of national CHL standards.