Here is my question: If this bill was a threat to our rights in any fashion why would the NRA be soliciting our help to contact legislators to support this bill?
The answer is they wouldn't.
So I comes back to my original concern: Why now when there is no way the president signs this bill and there is not enough support to override a veto? Wait until 2013 when there is hopefully a new resident in the White House.
As far as I have read in the bill (unless I have missed it) there is no remedy for the Gun Free Schools Act of 1995 which only a permit issued in the home state that the school is located is valid for carry within 1000' of a school. The ATF will enforce this provision on out of state CCW holders. All it would take is a simple traffic stop and an anti-gun LEO and you will find yourself in federal court. This is a problem that faces current reciprocity and would limit the effectiveness of H.R. 822. This bill should have addressed that problem if the sponsors were serious about making national reciprocity.
and the answer is....it really isn't a "Now" thing. This bill has been introduced every year since 1995.Quote:
Originally Posted by olsparky
I'm not worried about this bill in particular. Nothing in it currently (that's the operative word - who know what will happen in committee) restricts our rights further then they are currently restricted and I do like the benefits of not needing a half a dozen licenses to travel. What I worry about is the precedent that it establishes of the federal government now having a seat at the table of something that has been in the hands of the states. The next law will probably involve something like mandatory registration, or minimum training requirements. The one after that will require individuals to show need (i.e eliminates all shall issue), etc etc. Could it also be used by states who have a significant anti gun crowd to rescind their CCW permits? From what I read if a state like Illinois has no CCW permit then they don't have to recognize other state permits. Would it embolden the anti gunners in CA, NY, HI, and NJ for example to petition to drop their CCW permits altogether to "prevent those out of state guns from coming in" (as though criminals will abide by those laws anywa :hang3:). We must be careful of the law of unintended consequences.
As noted since this bill does nothing about the gun free school zones it is a load of crap.
Does this part not cover that?Quote:
Originally Posted by MECHTESTER
Quote:
‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
The Fed's already mandate background checks on sales of handguns and have established a law that you can't buy a handgun outside of your "home" state. They are involved. But, this should not be in the hands of the State or the Fed. Shall not be infringed is about as definitive as words can be, and is ignored in every state in the nation by both the States and the Feds. This law does nothing but make a small step towards taking back the Constitution. We didn't lose the 2nd Amendment all in one fell swoop and we can't take it back in one fell swoop. Let's continue the small steps that have begun and stop whining about what "might happen".Quote:
What I worry about is the precedent that it establishes of the federal government now having a seat at the table of something that has been in the hands of the states. The next law will probably involve something like mandatory registration, or minimum training requirements. The one after that will require
In reading the bill one thing that from my interpretation stands out. In those states where there are different levels of permits such as NY (I think) anyone with a permit from any other state has the unlimited permit.
I see this law opening up all kinds of judicial rulings such as if a NY resident has a limited NY permit but a non-resident permit from another state which permit will be accepted.
Will this cause states to quit issuing non-resident permits since they are no longer needed.
Will some states actually drop their permit program altogether.
Will this change the school zone ruling?
Will Vermont adopt some kind of permit program for the benefit of their residents as Alaska has.
I see this law opening the proverbial can of worms but I do agree totally that the states should get together and agree to accept all permits rather than the present mess that is called reciprocity or honoring. Better yet there should be no requirements.
Correct. Out of state permits would be unrestricted.Quote:
Originally Posted by FN1910
May only carry in one's home state with a home state permit.Quote:
I see this law opening up all kinds of judicial rulings such as if a NY resident has a limited NY permit but a non-resident permit from another state which permit will be accepted.
Quote:
Will this cause states to quit issuing non-resident permits since they are no longer needed. Possible. But would they want to give up that revenue?
Will some states actually drop their permit program altogether. ALso possible. Could definitely see NJ doing that.
Will this change the school zone ruling? I wonder if paragraph (b) covers that?
Will Vermont adopt some kind of permit program for the benefit of their residents as Alaska has. They really don't have to. A VT resident could simpy get a UT, FL, AZ permit to be covered in the rest of the states.
`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
As a political independent who legally carries concealed in 37 States today using current reciprocity rules, I'd rather keep the pressure on at the State level. Once concealed carry becomes regulated at the Federal level, the devil will certainly be in the details with respect to implementation. A good example is the Federal School Safety laws, whichever are ignored almost everywhere.