TexasCHLforum.com

I just received this email alert from the NRA-ILA. Here's how they feel:

"The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday. Please call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and ask them to support the Thune-Vitter interstate Right-to-Carry reciprocity amendment. "

Full Text: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5063" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm really trying to not be dense about this.

If the 2A were incorporated and there was a national CHL, which almost contradictory, I'm having a difficult time understanding why this would be bad. Once incorporated wouldn't that mean that the states and the fed would have less ability to "infringe" upon our rights to carry? I also think that it is strange that they have infringed on this right by restricting carrying arms in places like airports (secure areas) and federal property. Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of these restrictions? If so, I can safely assume they lost, right? Am I being to naive about this?

It is not a national carry law. It is basically a way of saying that the least restrictive state can set the standards for what constitutes concealed carry. Some states allow people who have done things that Texas does not allow to carry. (for example, some alcohol stuff, some minor sexual stuff). This law, thereby over throws the citizen's rights to determine what is appropriate for them and their state. Since each state is so unique in its history, environment, population pressures; it seems to me that each state should set its own criteria.

If nothing else, the Thune - Vitter amendment does keep the gun control fanatics on the defensive, forcing them to trot out the old and now more easily refuted fabrications about "wild west" consequences. Potentially, a lot more people will recognize the gun control arguments are based on unreasonable fear and misrepresentation.

B3XD wrote:. Some states allow people who have done things that Texas does not allow to carry. (for example, some alcohol stuff, some minor sexual stuff). Since each state is so unique in its history, environment, population pressures; it seems to me that each state should set its own criteria.

I disagree:

It is not a national carry law

That is exactly what it is. Allows a CHL holder to travel to other states that allow concealed carry.

It is basically a way of saying that the least restrictive state can set the standards for what constitutes concealed carry.

No it's not, as a CHL holder in one state who travels to a state that allows concealed carry, MUST abide by the concealed carry laws of that state. So a Texas CHL holder who travels to California, must abide by California's concealed carry laws, and vice versa

This law, thereby over throws the citizen's rights to determine what is appropriate for them and their state.

No it doesn't. It actually requires that a CHL holder from another state abide by that states CHL laws.

If you haven't read already the Thune - Vitter amendment, you should as it says pretty plainly what the Amendment does:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... sition=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me admit on my behalf, and probably others on the board, that I can't quite
fathom what we CHL's would gain if this federal rule passed.

If we can move from state to state, but have to obey the laws of the state in which
we are travelling, how is this different from the current situation?

Right now there are states who have reciprocity with Texas and those who don't.

It seems to me that even if the federal rule passed, we would still be hassled by police should we
choose to carry in NYS or Massachusetts, or Illinois.

From what I can gather from it, it will allow, for example, a CHL holder from Texas, to travel to say, Nevada(that Texas does not have a reciprocity agreement with, but they do issue CHL's). Or any other state that Texas does not have reciprocity agreements with.

Since Illinois is a no issue state(along with Wisconsin), NO CHL holder from ANY state would be allowed to legally carry there.

That's the only benefit I can see.

The debate on this amendment is happening right now(9:50am) and is being televised on C-SPAN2, if anyone is interested in watching this fascinating event.

Just watch, the "witch" Senator from Kalifornia. I was disgusted with poor taste of selection of slides showing cops killed by CCW permit holders. What is happening in this world? How many many cops trained people to carry? How many CHL licenses in TX there are ? How about comparing real apple to apple? how many cops were killed by non-CCW permit holders/CHL?

It just disgusting to flash pre-packaged fear generating slides!

Isn't it forcing reciprocity on states that we don't have it with currently?

Looks like they are voting right now.