National Right To Carry Reciprocity Bill Introdued In US House

[NorCalChuck]

Seems like it might work . . . .

"H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995."

More detailed information here:
H.R.822: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which... OpenCongress

[NavyLCDR]

I think that if this legislation passes it will have the same effect in states like New York that FOPA does. The state will still prosecute persons for carrying firearms against their state laws, and the case will have to go to the Federal level to get the conviction overturned. Average Joe Citizen simply won't have the resources to carry their defense to the Federal level.

[DannyBear71]

For all practical purposes reciprocity is a moot point. States will be forced to face reality. Individuals have a Constitution right to own and carry firearms for self-defense. A right, states will find very hard to get around, although I have no doubt some will try very hard.

Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”

States have little choice in the matter. Even Justice Ginsburg recognized that a firearm that is required to be unloaded renders it useless for self-defense.

States MUST allow the carry of loaded firearms by all citizens except felons and mental defectives. States only real choices are the manner in which they carry: open or concealed, and which places they choose to designate as "sensitive places". Which the court made clear must be "narrowly defined."

Given this new standard the Guns Free School Zone Act of '95 is clearly unconstitutional. While I believe the court will allow states to prohibit firearms in schools and possibly on school property a Federal or State law which makes it a crime to exercise a constitutionally protected right by carrying firearm within a 1,000' (ie.. walking on a public sidewalk, driving on a public road, or on ones own property) of school property will never pass a "strict standard of review". So, even the Commerce Clause arguments about whether Congress had the power to make the law in the first place are equally moot.

For the ney sayers here I will add one final point. Lawsuits are currently underway in NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA over this very issue. None have been dismissed despite repeated attempts and extremely poor arguments. Its obvious the Defendants know they're fighting a loosing battle. And its only a matter of time before the anti-gun states are forced to face reality.

[santa]

For all practical purposes reciprocity is a moot point. States will be forced to face reality. Individuals have a Constitution right to own and carry firearms for self-defense. A right, states will find very hard to get around, although I have no doubt some will try very hard.

Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”

States have little choice in the matter. Even Justice Ginsburg recognized that a firearm that is required to be unloaded renders it useless for self-defense.

States MUST allow the carry of loaded firearms by all citizens except felons and mental defectives. States only real choices are the manner in which they carry: open or concealed, and which places they choose to designate as "sensitive places". Which the court made clear must be "narrowly defined."

Given this new standard the Guns Free School Zone Act of '95 is clearly unconstitutional. While I believe the court will allow states to prohibit firearms in schools and possibly on school property a Federal or State law which makes it a crime to exercise a constitutionally protected right by carrying firearm within a 1,000' (ie.. walking on a public sidewalk, driving on a public road, or on ones own property) of school property will never pass a "strict standard of review". So, even the Commerce Clause arguments about whether Congress had the power to make the law in the first place are equally moot.

For the ney sayers here I will add one final point. Lawsuits are currently underway in NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA over this very issue. None have been dismissed despite repeated attempts and extremely poor arguments. Its obvious the Defendants know they're fighting a loosing battle. And its only a matter of time before the anti-gun states are forced to face reality.

I hope that this does come about. It would seem that a federal law that requires states to honor out of state permits adresses the school zone issue. But as I do not trust ATF I would like it to be in writting as part of the national reciprocity act stating that reciprocity applies to the school zones.

[nogods]

Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”

You need to understand the difference between rationale and holding in a court opinion. The portion you quoted was not the court's holding. It was merely the court's "finding" of the meaning of all of the relevant texts that had been reviewed by the court. It was part of the court's rationale for its holding, but it was not the holding of the court.

Moreover, that quote doesn't give operative meaning to the right. that right still has to be given concrete meaning. in so doing the court noted that the right did not mean anyone could possess any weapon any place they desired.

The court's holding is the operative definition of the right that it found. No more, no less. Subsequent decisions might expand on that definition, but Heller goes no further than this:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

New York law presents a good test case for further expansion of the right. Presently, New York is a "shall issue" state for home self defense purposes. For all other purposes it is a "may issue" state. Someone denied a concealed carry permit in New York could make the argument you have posited. But there is yet no certainty as to the outcome.

[drose40]

As with other changes to "established" wrong-headed laws, persistence is the key. We must keep pressing our case. Day after day, week after week, year after year. Quoting Churchill, "“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

We once had a little Cocker Spaniel. That 20 lb dog could move my 185 lb body across the room as I groomed him. Because he didn't like the clippers, he'd constantly lean away from me and I'd have to move a little to be able to reach him. In not too long a time, I'd be at the end of the clipper cord. The dog's persistent pressure was effective.

Once the legislators recognize that the issue and it's supporters are not going to get bored and give up, they will respond. Of course the initial response will be to ignore, then to mock, then you win.

[6shootercarry]

And if we all just continue to sit on our hands and not let those who represent us know how we feel about these issues, CONSTANTLY, things will never change and we just have our apathetic selves to blame...come on people...so much negativity

Conditioning and Compromise... They will be the death of the 2nd Amendment and freedom as well. Thinking, writing and saying "it's never gonna happen"...

Get off your 4King arse and make it happen. Don't accept no...

[6shootercarry]

You need to understand the difference between rationale and holding in a court opinion. The portion you quoted was not the court's holding. It was merely the court's "finding" of the meaning of all of the relevant texts that had been reviewed by the court. It was part of the court's rationale for its holding, but it was not the holding of the court.

Moreover, that quote doesn't give operative meaning to the right. that right still has to be given concrete meaning. in so doing the court noted that the right did not mean anyone could possess any weapon any place they desired.

The court's holding is the operative definition of the right that it found. No more, no less. Subsequent decisions might expand on that definition, but Heller goes no further than this:



New York law presents a good test case for further expansion of the right. Presently, New York is a "shall issue" state for home self defense purposes. For all other purposes it is a "may issue" state. Someone denied a concealed carry permit in New York could make the argument you have posited. But there is yet no certainty as to the outcome.

Blah Blah Blah...

Charlie Sheen sounds more sane... Funny how that works...

You have to be a NY lawyer?

New York is a liberal cesspool and infringes on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms... Shall issue?? Same crap here in MA... Some get and some do not... Bullshite... Why is it that no non resident permits will be issued to citizens of the U.S. who reside in other sates yet visit NY perhaps on business or vacation? Of course we can drive our cars on the NY toll roads, and spend our $$ in the state, but God forbid we would want to exercise our rights while doing these things... Trampling rights, plain and simple...

And we had that moron Bloomberg, dancing across state borders with his anti-gun agenda... Pure fool...

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

So only in ones home can one expect to exercise a right of self defense with a weapon of ones choosing? Being assaulted outside of ones home, out of luck? Really?? And you agree with this?

"that right still has to be given concrete meaning". Still waiting for them to tell you what it means?

[S&W645]

......
"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." .......

That right there should also allow the SCOTUS to again strike down the latest laws from Chicago. What didn't Chicago understand about not being required to make any legally owned gun non-operable? But yet they went ahead with the only one operable gun in the home rule.

[6shootercarry]

As with other changes to "established" wrong-headed laws, persistence is the key. We must keep pressing our case. Day after day, week after week, year after year. Quoting Churchill, "“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

We once had a little Cocker Spaniel. That 20 lb dog could move my 185 lb body across the room as I groomed him. Because he didn't like the clippers, he'd constantly lean away from me and I'd have to move a little to be able to reach him. In not too long a time, I'd be at the end of the clipper cord. The dog's persistent pressure was effective.

Once the legislators recognize that the issue and it's supporters are not going to get bored and give up, they will respond. Of course the initial response will be to ignore, then to mock, then you win.

The real issue, go look at this poll...

Poll: Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

Trying to figure out why there are NO votes?? 39 at last count..

Can't get the gun owners to agree on anything. I've read and heard some that make statements about needing restrictions and regulations. How they argue the right is "not defined until the courts say it's so"... How compromise is the way to get our rights back...

Get the gun owning community to make a unified and cohesive statement and stand their ground and you'll have a chance at making a change. Imagine if we all pulled in the same direction... The cord would get short really fast..

Allow compromise to be the tool used to get "a little further ahead" and we will never be free from infringement on the right...

It's up to us... What say you all?