TexasCHLforum.com

First I've heard of this bill, found when googling something else.

H.R.1243
Title: To amend title 18 of the 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.
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] (introduced 3/10/2005) Cosponsors (72)
Latest Major Action: 5/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01243:)

I read a write-up that said it would make the "Full Faith & Credit" clause apply for Concealed Carry permits, just as it does for marriage licenses, drivers licences etc.

Which would mean any permit that you rightfully have issued to you is good anywhere in the US, except for airplanes....

Charles et al - you guys know anything about this?

-nick

For a long time I have prefered that the Feds keep their hands off of gun laws.

Even Pro Rights, gun laws.

Our side seems to be doing a good job of getting the laws corrected at the state level but there seem to be a lot of Anti Rights politicians in Washington. I am a little concerned about them getting involved.


On the other hand.
I would like to see the Feds forced to recognize CHL's from all states.

We shouldn't need a law to make "full faith and credit" apply.

tomneal wrote:For a long time I have prefered that the Feds keep their hands off of gun laws.

Even Pro Rights, gun laws.

I fully see your point and agree. My line of thinking shifted while reading about the H.R. 218 bill allowing national carry for LEOs.

If a law was passed to have CCW/CHLs qualify under "Full Faith & Credit" then it isn't really a gun law, just a mandatory recognition of a state issued credential right?

-nick

jimlongley wrote:We shouldn't need a law to make "full faith and credit" apply.

+1 Just like we shouldn't need laws defining marriage is between one man and one woman.

I don't think we'll ever see a national reciprocity law passed. However, if it is, I would much prefer to see it based upon the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution, rather than the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, as was HR218 and the new federal gun-free school zone statutes.

The Commerce Clause has been perverted to an extreme, being used as a justification for the federal government to do virtually anything it wishes. We now have at least 3, probably 4 and possibly 5 U.S. Supreme Court Justices that want to rein in Congress' reliance on the Commerce Clause to do that which the Constitution does not otherwise allow. If that happens, laws like HR 218 and the new federal gun-free school zone statutes will fall to Constitutional challenge.

Regards,
Chas.

I strongly oppose this, just as I strongly opposed LEOSA (even though I personally benefit from it).

The answer isn't to keep adding federal laws. The answer is to start deleting vast portions of the U.S. Code. The 1986 machinegun ban should be first, since it was the first federal law to actually ban gun ownership by the populace at large. Then I'd go for NFA '34 and GCA '68, since all federal controls rely on those two acts.

Somewhere in the midst of this, people might rediscover that quaint thing known as the Constitution, and the inalienable rights it proposed to protect.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:I strongly oppose this, just as I strongly opposed LEOSA (even though I personally benefit from it).

The answer isn't to keep adding federal laws. The answer is to start deleting vast portions of the U.S. Code. The 1986 machinegun ban should be first, since it was the first federal law to actually ban gun ownership by the populace at large. Then I'd go for NFA '34 and GCA '68, since all federal controls rely on those two acts.

Somewhere in the midst of this, people might rediscover that quaint thing known as the Constitution, and the inalienable rights it proposed to protect.

Kevin

Amen Brother!

Very Best Regards,

Tom

I think KB and I found something we agree on.

I have never understood why a DL from TX is honored in NY, but not a CHL.

I have always said I hate federal gun laws. If H Clinton and Chuck Shumer have a problem with the people in NY having guns, then so be it, but don't tell us in Texas how we need to do things.

At least state laws allow people to move to free states, but when they make fed law, where can you go??

Glenn

Baytown wrote:I have never understood why a DL from TX is honored in NY, but not a CHL.

Glenn

It was fairly recently, in historical terms, when the states didn't recognize each others' driver's licenses and even marriage license.

Another $.02,
What about our 14th Amendment??
Sec 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty,or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

My understanding is that the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil
War to ensure that (1) the newly freed slaves were granted full and
equal rights as U.S. citizens.
(2) That States could not disarm Blacks to prevent them from
defending themselves. The 2nd Amendment specifically being an
issue, because at he time the "Night Riders" were seizing guns and
other property from the "ex-slaves".

The debates prior to passage of the 14th centered around the "ex-slaves", now citizens, having "The right to keep and bear arms".
So that they could protect themselves thus insuring their "Life", "Liberty" and "property"

My point: The 14th Amendment DID provided the newly freed "ex-slaves" with all the protections of the Constitution especially the 2nd
Amendment. (Yes I know that it took almost 100 years for complete implementation in all states)
So why does the 14th Amendment that allowed the Blacks to arm themselves for self protection in 1868, not allow ALL U.S. citizens today to arm themselves for self protection?

We don't need a Commerce Clause or a new federal law. We have
a Constitution! We need a Supreme Court that will enforce the
provisions of that Constitution for ALL citizens in ALL states!!

Look out, if I have caffiein or too much sugar I can really get going!
I swore to uphold and defend that Constitution, haven't quit!
OE

One thing that gets tossed around a lot is the notion that "CHLs should be covered by Full Faith & Credit, just like DLs!"

Which would be fine, except that DLs aren't covered by FF&C. States recognize each other's DLs by an interstate compact, where they agreed to do so. It works just like reciprocity, and the feds didn't have to pass a law to make it happen.

Kevin

CHL should be just as consistent as driving, and the majority of exceptions to where one may carry need to be considerably reduced.

wow...old thread

Why the sudden spate of 2006 topics popping up again?