TexasCHLforum.com

Hopefully I'm not creating an already existing thread, but I thought this was interesting and worth a look.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-197

1/6/2009--Introduced.
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to establish a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.

It is currently in the Judiciary Committee. A few Texas reps on it. Maybe we can help get it passed even in a primarily Democrat environment. There has been three previous versions introduced... and failed.

TxDrifter wrote:Hopefully I'm not creating an already existing thread, but I thought this was interesting and worth a look.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-197

1/6/2009--Introduced.
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to establish a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.

It is currently in the Judiciary Committee. A few Texas reps on it. Maybe we can help get it passed even in a primarily Democrat environment. There has been three previous versions introduced... and failed.

Given the composition of today's federal government, you would have a better chance of getting a law passed giving tax breaks to millionaires to buy coats made from baby harp seal pelts.

I know, but always good to watch these things and try. If we continue to "give in" we've already lost.

This is not a good thing. We do not want to federal controlling CHLs.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:This is not a good thing. We do not want to federal controlling CHLs.

Actually it doesn't appear to effect anyone other than non-residents. There could be fine-print that I am overlooking, but it appears to be something that kind of legitimizes interstate use of our CHL.

Nah, I'm not for this.

If a state wants to ban carry, I think it's their right to try and do what they feel they have to do to protect their citizens. Forcing states to allow carry is just as bad as banning it at a federal level.

As much as I'd love to be able to carry while visiting friends in California, this isn't the way to go about it.
Darnit.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to establish a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state or as specified under this Act.

It sounds to me like it wouldn't force states to allow concealed carry, but would just establish reciprocity between those states that do allow it.

If that is the case I hope this passes. I agree that the fed should not control carry rights that is a state level issue in my eyes but if it is to make reciprocity easier I am all for it. I would love to carry in Ohio when visiting the FIL.

I still don't think the federal govt shoudl be sticking its nose into the fray here.

If states want to simplify it amongst themselves, they should start something akin to the drivers license compact.

Or, get the courts to clarify that the 2nd amendment strictly limits the ability of the states to ban carry for non-criminal purposes.

I find it puzzling that people would decry the federal government overreaching for certain things like Abortion and education, but would want them to overreach in things they agree with.
As much as I do not like it, the courts, for now, seem to think that the states can limit carry.

EDIT: in rereading the act, what I think would happen would be states like California going completely ban carrying, instead of our desired result. It'd be a mess.

They should scrap HR 197 and amend LEOSA to include people with a CHL. Or repeal LEOSA entirely. I'm good either way but it's disgusting and un-American to deny equal protection in the law.

Bart wrote:They should scrap HR 197 and amend LEOSA to include people with a CHL. Or repeal LEOSA entirely. I'm good either way but it's disgusting and un-American to deny equal protection in the law.

I think HR 197 will sound the death knell for LEOSA. I can't see any states challenging LEOSA (at least formally in court) because no one wants to appear to be anti-police. I can see them challenging HR 197 if it passes. And since the constitutionality of 197 and LEOSA are both tied to the same thing (Commerce Clause), a ruling against one would be a ruling against both.

It would be a major step forward to tie the two together. If NYPD doesn't allow us to carry on vacation in NYC, I don't see any legitimate reason we should allow them to carry on vacation in Texas.

From what I read on this it is not requiring any national standards. It is trying to emulate how a driver's license works and requiring other states to recognize our licenses. Basically since we are licensed in our home state that we can carry according to the rules of that state under our residence license. California would fight this tooth and nail though.

What I don't like is the places I feel least safe are the places I can't carry. For example, planning on going to the rodeo and riding the buses in. It would be nice if I could carry all the way there. It would not be so bad if they had metal detectors and searched everyone, as well as providing a place for me to secure my handgun. I think I read about someone suing or trying to create a law that if they ban a firearm, such as Reliant or any 30.06 then they would have to provide a secure place for a firearm. Heaven knows our cars aren't secure enough.

wheelgun1958 wrote:

Bart wrote:They should scrap HR 197 and amend LEOSA to include people with a CHL. Or repeal LEOSA entirely. I'm good either way but it's disgusting and un-American to deny equal protection in the law.

Another vote for dropping HR 197 and replacing it with a bill to include CHL in LEOSA.

I remember a promise that would be the next step when they where asking us to call and write to support LEOSA.