TexasCHLforum.com

I came across this while looking up some stuff. I am curious if anyone else has heard of this? News to me. How sweet would that be? I Expect stiff opposition on these if either of these see any real light.


http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/hr5782.html
This links shows:
HR 5782

110th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 5782


To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 2008
Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. SALI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that 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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2008'.
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

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.
`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
END


and then there is this:
http://www.gunowners.org/a051308.htm

Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has filed a pro-gun amendment to HR 980, and it could be voted on as early as tomorrow!

This amendment would protect the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons (outside of their home state) in states that allow concealed carry.

Sen. Vitter explains that his amendment does not violate the rights of states as it "does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit."

In other words, the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried shall be followed. "My amendment will not federalize concealed carry permits but simply requires concealed carry permits to be recognized in other states that allow concealed carry permits," Vitter said.

This is a real reciprocity provision which grants citizens the "full faith and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Section 1 of this article says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Vitter says that this constitutional provision authorizes the Congress to pass legislation forcing each state to recognize the "public Acts" of other states. So if states are not willing to recognize another state's laws, Congress has the authority to pass laws to require recognition of those measures.

It's just like with driver's licenses. If certain states refused to honor the driver's licenses of citizens in other states, Congress could pass legislation (under Article IV) to require every state to honor all licenses.

Already sent letters to our Senators on this one!!

-Rug

So you are not opposed to recognizing the gay marriage licenses issued in Mass?

tallmike wrote:So you are not opposed to recognizing the gay marriage licenses issued in Mass?

Nope.
I think it's a waste of hot air to argue about.

I'd gladly give up on the Gay marriage thing for nationally recognized ccw.

tallmike wrote:So you are not opposed to recognizing the gay marriage licenses issued in Mass?

Don't forget California. Maybe now Utah can bring back bigamy too. I don't see where family structure is any business of the government, as long as there's no abuse, etc.

However, I also think the government shouldn't give special privileges to people because of their religion or other lifestyle choices. Different tax rates for single, married or head of household is morally bankrupt. If the teacup tyrants want to penalize life choices that are different than their own, they should have the intellectual honesty to for example pass a law requiring people to have children and fine the childless. At least the accused would have the benefit of due process before being deprived of property for their "crime" against the teacup tyrants.

tallmike wrote:So you are not opposed to recognizing the gay marriage licenses issued in Mass?

Why not? Misery loves company. If we straight folks have to suffer, so do they

maximus2161 wrote:(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

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.
`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

I love that someone has the guts to introduce this to committee, but I think that being this general, it has some flaws:

1: Who decides what qualifies as a "specific type of place"? The judiciary? The State legislature? You can bet Illinois will try to argue that an "incorporated city" is a specific type of place, and I don't want to be the test case. We've seen how long it's taken for Parker/Heller v DC to reach SCOTUS and they still haven't handed down a ruling; what if Messrs. Parker or Heller were behind bars waiting for SCOTUS to decide whether the law under which they were arrested/convicted for gun possession was unconstitutional?

2: This makes the State agency that issues non-resident licenses and has the lowest standards for licensing a very busy office. So you live in Newark NJ and the police department denied your CC application? But Georgia has shall-issue non-resident GFLs (I do not know if they actually issue out-of-state)? Then just pay $15, pass a background check, and thumb your nose at your local police chief.

3: Referring to the previous point; Jersey requires an FOID simply to possess the handgun. Whether you can legally CARRY a handgun or not with an out-of-state CCW license, a Jersey cop may bust you for simply HAVING it without carrying state-recognized OWNERSHIP papers.

4: Cops will need to be trained to spot fake carry licenses as well as fake DLs from all 50 states and DC. "Not my problem" you say? Try saying that when DCPD busts you with a Texas CHL because THEY think it's fake and YOU can't prove otherwise. Every issuing state would have to provide unrestricted access to their records, and the checking state must be able to access it. If Texas' access point goes down or dispatch doesn't have access to Texas records (because the PD has dragged its feet upgrading the system), you're in cuffs on suspicion of unlawful concealed carry.

5: So, the Federal law is passed, and a Court decision has stated that a city is not specific enough to enforceably ban guns. That is the entirety of Chicago's gun law. So, as long as I'm not violating the federal Gun-Free Zones Act, I have freer rein in Chicago than I do in my home state which may ban me from any business with a liquor license. I personally think that's great, but I think Chicago and Illinois will scramble to reword gun law to protect as much of the ban as possible. What results may stand up to legal challenge because it's no longer a blanket ban

Some of this may be an exaggeration, but when you browse OCDO, TxCHL, THR and THF you find a lot of cases where people are harrassed even by their local PD for carrying in accordance with the laws of their own state. I also know the Left Coast states, Illinois and California are going to fight this tooth and nail, so the House is going to be a tough fight (tougher I daresay than the Senate; the 37 states already having reciprocity with each other will form the majority there). If it passes anyway, those states who oppose it are going to do everything they possibly can to retain the control they already have. States that do not want to respect the lowest common denominator will toughen penalties for unlawful carry and make the conditions trickier, so people will either have to take THEIR class or not risk felony unlawful carry charges. Jurisdictions that ban it altogether will pass "gun-free zone" legislation making "posted areas" a specific type of place that stands up to legal review, and then the city will require the signage in order to get/keep a business permit. Anti states have already taken far more drastic measures than what this bill would require to ignore.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I really like the idea of trying to get CCW permits recognized universally the same way driver licenses are, but I think trying to force the issue will actually make things worse as states tighten the screws on their own gun laws in attempt to circumvent this.

Liko81 wrote:I love that someone has the guts to introduce this to committee, but I think that being this general, it has some flaws:

1: Who decides what qualifies as a "specific type of place"? The judiciary? The State legislature? You can bet Illinois will try to argue that an "incorporated city" is a specific type of place, and I don't want to be the test case. We've seen how long it's taken for Parker/Heller v DC to reach SCOTUS and they still haven't handed down a ruling; what if Messrs. Parker or Heller were behind bars waiting for SCOTUS to decide whether the law under which they were arrested/convicted for gun possession was unconstitutional?

2: This makes the State agency that issues non-resident licenses and has the lowest standards for licensing a very busy office. So you live in Newark NJ and the police department denied your CC application? But Georgia has shall-issue non-resident GFLs (I do not know if they actually issue out-of-state)? Then just pay $15, pass a background check, and thumb your nose at your local police chief.

3: Referring to the previous point; Jersey requires an FOID simply to possess the handgun. Whether you can legally CARRY a handgun or not with an out-of-state CCW license, a Jersey cop may bust you for simply HAVING it without carrying state-recognized OWNERSHIP papers.

4: Cops will need to be trained to spot fake carry licenses as well as fake DLs from all 50 states and DC. "Not my problem" you say? Try saying that when DCPD busts you with a Texas CHL because THEY think it's fake and YOU can't prove otherwise. Every issuing state would have to provide unrestricted access to their records, and the checking state must be able to access it. If Texas' access point goes down or dispatch doesn't have access to Texas records (because the PD has dragged its feet upgrading the system), you're in cuffs on suspicion of unlawful concealed carry.

5: So, the Federal law is passed, and a Court decision has stated that a city is not specific enough to enforceably ban guns. That is the entirety of Chicago's gun law. So, as long as I'm not violating the federal Gun-Free Zones Act, I have freer rein in Chicago than I do in my home state which may ban me from any business with a liquor license. I personally think that's great, but I think Chicago and Illinois will scramble to reword gun law to protect as much of the ban as possible. What results may stand up to legal challenge because it's no longer a blanket ban

Some of this may be an exaggeration, but when you browse OCDO, TxCHL, THR and THF you find a lot of cases where people are harrassed even by their local PD for carrying in accordance with the laws of their own state. I also know the Left Coast states, Illinois and California are going to fight this tooth and nail, so the House is going to be a tough fight (tougher I daresay than the Senate; the 37 states already having reciprocity with each other will form the majority there). If it passes anyway, those states who oppose it are going to do everything they possibly can to retain the control they already have. States that do not want to respect the lowest common denominator will toughen penalties for unlawful carry and make the conditions trickier, so people will either have to take THEIR class or not risk felony unlawful carry charges. Jurisdictions that ban it altogether will pass "gun-free zone" legislation making "posted areas" a specific type of place that stands up to legal review, and then the city will require the signage in order to get/keep a business permit. Anti states have already taken far more drastic measures than what this bill would require to ignore.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I really like the idea of trying to get CCW permits recognized universally the same way driver licenses are, but I think trying to force the issue will actually make things worse as states tighten the screws on their own gun laws in attempt to circumvent this.

Kind of harks back to when the various states did not recognize each other's driver's licenses. There were states that would not allow drivers from other states to drive on particular road, particularly truck drivers, and most drivers who had to drive in those states were savvy enough to be aware of the laws and to have multiple licenses to cover all eventualities - kind of like having a UT, FL, and TX CHL to cover multiple states that each alone doesn't.

And while our automobile registrations and inspections are pretty much honored by the various states, truck registrations are still not and regulations vary greatly.

I expect that, as you said, the states that are against us would still be so, and would find many and various ways to throw stumbling blocks in law abiding citizens' paths, and fighting them in the courts will be time consuming and expensive.

I doubt that the law, the way I read it, would apply to IL in the first place, because they don't allow concealed carry, which would, "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried . . ." pretty much eliminate the whole state.

Liko81 wrote:4: Cops will need to be trained to spot fake carry licenses as well as fake DLs from all 50 states and DC. "Not my problem" you say? Try saying that when DCPD busts you with a Texas CHL because THEY think it's fake and YOU can't prove otherwise. Every issuing state would have to provide unrestricted access to their records, and the checking state must be able to access it. If Texas' access point goes down or dispatch doesn't have access to Texas records (because the PD has dragged its feet upgrading the system), you're in cuffs on suspicion of unlawful concealed carry.

If it's really such a problem, LEOSA would have been de facto invalidated for the same reasons.

jimlongley wrote:I doubt that the law, the way I read it, would apply to IL in the first place, because they don't allow concealed carry, which would, "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried . . ." pretty much eliminate the whole state.

Liko81 brings up some good points, and that discussion will be interesting when it plays out in the House, but I was going to make the same point that Jim just made. The proposed law specifically states that the only states that would have to honor another state's CHL are the ones who have a law issuing concealed carry permits in some capacity already - which is to say, all of 'em but IL & WI as "no-issue" states, and AK & VT as "unrestricted" states that don't issue permits but don't require them either. Assuming of course that AK & VT allow non-residents to carry concealed alongside their own citizens, we probably don't have to worry about those states as pertains to this bill.

So I think Jim's right re: IL & WI - they won't have to change a thing 'cause they already don't allow their own citizens to carry concealed at all, so they'd be under no compulsion to allow us to carry either. CA on the other hand, and the 8 other may-issue states, will be required to honor TX CHLs, but they'd only have to give them as much freedom as they give their own CHLs (those who manage to "know somebody" and actually get one). That's where the "specific place" comes in. Each state's concealed-carry law is a bit different as to where a permit holder can carry, and it'd be the out-of-state permit holder's responsibility to know what that law is before carrying in that other state. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as they say.

aardwolf wrote:

tallmike wrote:So you are not opposed to recognizing the gay marriage licenses issued in Mass?

Don't forget California. Maybe now Utah can bring back bigamy too. I don't see where family structure is any business of the government, as long as there's no abuse, etc.

However, I also think the government shouldn't give special privileges to people because of their religion or other lifestyle choices. Different tax rates for single, married or head of household is morally bankrupt.

Amen to that brother! It always confounds folks (especially my uber-GOP friends) when gay marriage comes up and I say something to that effect. "Legalized gay marriage would mean nothing if we got the government out of the wedding ceremony & marriage contract altogether."

JT

Based on my, admittedly biased, assessment and reading of sections 265 and 400 of the NY State Penal Law, specifically 265.20(a)(3): http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/N ... 28b%29.htm I suggest that if this law passes, then a CHL holder from any other state would be able to carry concealed, or open, in any place in the entire State of NY except:

(3) He knowingly has in his possession a rifle, shotgun or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of New York college of environmental science and forestry, without the written authorization of such educational institution; or

Which would even include bars, courtrooms, and places featuring "adult" entertainment.

No 51% law, no alcohol on breath provision, not much of anything - of course NY's pistol permit system is amazingly corrupt, and has been since Tim Sullivan's day, leading, in most cases, to a preponderance of the holders of pistol permits being politically connected.

Who cares?

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Better to stay in the real world.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Who cares?

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Better to stay in the real world.

Ya never know - as was pointed out, the number of shall-issue states alone makes for a majority in the Senate (assuming of course that the political makeup of a state's two Senators is somewhat akin to that of its own legislature).

must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode

I wonder how close the House reps would come, because of course the may-issue states (whose state legislatures are probably just irritated that they haven't been able to repeal their may-issue legislation yet) tend to be the big ones like CA & NY that send truckloads of Reps to the House.

After that it would just depend on who's in the White Hou.... uh.... Aw crap, did I just talk myself into voting for McCain?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Who cares?

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Better to stay in the real world.

Reality is unpleasant so I prefer to spend as little time there as possible.

thejtrain wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I doubt that the law, the way I read it, would apply to IL in the first place, because they don't allow concealed carry, which would, "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried . . ." pretty much eliminate the whole state.

... I think Jim's right re: IL & WI - they won't have to change a thing 'cause they already don't allow their own citizens to carry concealed at all, so they'd be under no compulsion to allow us to carry either. CA on the other hand, and the 8 other may-issue states, will be required to honor TX CHLs, but they'd only have to give them as much freedom as they give their own CHLs (those who manage to "know somebody" and actually get one). That's where the "specific place" comes in. Each state's concealed-carry law is a bit different as to where a permit holder can carry, and it'd be the out-of-state permit holder's responsibility to know what that law is before carrying in that other state. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as they say.

I dunno. The full clause you quote reads thusly: "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried". That's the problem; the grounds of a State is by no means a specific type of location. The laws an out-of-state CCW would be "subject to" would be more like TPC 46.03-035 and those sections' counterparts in other States. My read of this law is that "no-issue" policy would be unenforceable; this law doesn't care if you give CCW permits to your own residents, you have to give Full Faith And Credit the the permit of another state. If "no-issue", "no-carry" is the scope and depth of your gun law, congratulations, you have no gun law with respect to out-of-state holders because you would be in violation of Federal law.

That's my read, anyway. YMMV and IANAL.