Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important) - Page 18
Page 18 of 31 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 302

Thread: Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

  1. Great job! For those of you that want to write Congress, you're welcome to use this sample letter. Feel free to change it however you like to reflect your personal words and feelings. Be sure to print off a copy of the ATF letter and include it in your physical mailing envelope; or attach a file copy of it to your E-mail. Also, the United States Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, has written an amendment that would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. He has been reluctant to introduce it because he feels that he "needs more support." Everyone, please call his office and let them know you support repealing the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. His office number is 202-224-5754.

    Tom Coburn's E-mail is: [email protected] That is Senator_Coburn I know it's kinda hard to see the underscore in the blue hyperlink.

    Here is a copy of the amendment: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ZA95_Amend.pdf




    I wish to express my concerns about Title 18 U.S.C 922(q) known as "The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995." This federal law makes it generally unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a functional firearm, within one thousand(1000)feet of the property line of any public or private elementary, middle, or high school in our nation. As the law is currently enacted, it effectively voids, in developed areas, the concealed carry reciprocity agreements which have been entered into by most of the forty-eight(48) states that issue permits. The law also fails to recognize unlicensed carry in the states that allow this practice. Although The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 contains two exceptions which are applicable to armed citizens, they do not adequately protect these individuals while exercising their Second Amendment rights. The original 1990 version of this law was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, and was reenacted in 1995 with the very minor changes necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

    The first exception in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is that it does not apply to private property. Although this exception protects gun owners living within 1000 feet of a school, it does not provide armed citizens any protection while they are traveling on public property, such as sidewalks, roads, and highways. The attached maps illustrate how the large number of schools in developed areas make it nearly impossible for someone to travel armed without being in violation.

    The second exception is if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements. This is further explained by the attached letter from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. For obvious reasons, our laws do not require an automobile driver to get a separate driver's license from every state they wish to drive in. Accordingly, the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 should not require a permit holder to obtain separate state permits to qualify for the federal exemption. In addition, most states allow for some form of legal, but unlicensed carry. This may be open carry, automobile carry, or concealed carry without requiring a permit. These activities are highly regulated in the states which allow them, but they are not recognized by The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995.

    Importantly, the current law is different than the original version which was passed in 1990, and struck down by the United States Supreme Court in the 1995 case of United States v Lopez. The US Supreme Court ruled the original law was invalid because Congress had not included the required jurisdictional element which is used in other federal laws. Following the Lopez ruling, Congress reenacted the law, with the necessary jurisdictional element, requiring that the prosecuting attorney prove that a firearm or its part have at some point in time, moved in or otherwise effected interstate commerce. Although the current law has not been reviewed by the US Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several Federal Appellate Courts including the First, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. All of these circuits have ruled that the presence of a jurisdictional element in the current law, corrects the issue that caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez.

    In conclusion, by making it generally unlawful for an individual to travel armed on public sidewalks, roads, and highways that pass within one thousand feet of a school, Title 18 U.S.C. 922(q) criminalizes activity which is legal and highly regulated under state law. It is important that The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 be amended to recognize the laws of the forty-eight States which allow citizens without criminal convictions to legally carry a firearm.

  2.   
  3. #172
    Got a reply from Debbie Stabenaw. Said at this time she is satisfied with the law. SHE DON'T GET IT ! ! ! Wrote her back and asked her how she would feel if one of HER family members from Mi. got charged under this law. She says she comes from a family of gun owners, so will see what she has to say about that.
    On another note, anyone here from N.C. that can contact Congresswoman ELLMERS, ( she just announced she would start packing at public events ), maybe she would be willing to help get rid of this BULLS*** law. Or are they exempt as members of Congress?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by missoak View Post
    Got a reply from Debbie Stabenaw. Said at this time she is satisfied with the law. SHE DON'T GET IT ! ! !
    Keep in mind that the people who respond to letters are office staff, and their responses do not always reflect the Representative's opinions. I would suggest calling their office and stressing your points. Share this issue with everyone you know, and have everyone call their representatives. Hundreds of phone calls are more difficult to ignore than a single letter. Please call Tom Coburn's office and express your support for fixing Fed GFSZA 1995.

    No, representatives of Congress do not have any special exemption from Fed GFZA95.

  5. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Keep in mind that the people who respond to letters are office staff, and their responses do not always reflect the Representative's opinions. I would suggest calling their office and stressing your points. Share this issue with everyone you know, and have everyone call their representatives. Hundreds of phone calls are more difficult to ignore than a single letter. Please call Tom Coburn's office and express your support for fixing Fed GFSZA 1995.

    No, representatives of Congress do not have any special exemption from Fed GFZA95.
    Again, I ask that anyone from North Carolina contact Congress Woman Ellmers. She may not be aware that she is not exempt from this stupid law.

  6. Howdy
    I've read through this whole thread and can't find the answer to my question.
    First... Thank You to those that have brought this to our attention.
    B. This is not to anger or argue with any one or thing.
    Third... My question after a bit of explaining...
    I live in TEXAS and have my TX CHL.
    From what I've been told and read about our (as in TX) Reciprocity Agreements with the 29 other states that we've got it with.....
    TX says... you do your's the way we do ours... so
    we'll consider yours as ours as you do the same, and
    we don't won't have to send everyone another copy of ours or you send yours.
    I took this from TXs' web site...
    ............
    TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
    WHEREAS, Section 411.173(b) of the Government Code of the State of
    Texas directs that the governor shall negotiate an agreement with any
    other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a
    concealed handgun under which a license issued by the
    other state is recognized in this state, or shall issue a proclamation that
    a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state, if the
    attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background
    check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is initialed by
    state or local authorities or an agent of the state or local authorities
    before the license is issued;
    ...................
    My question is this---
    how does this Fed Law change this?
    As has been pointed out to me.... our agreements are to treat those of other States as having ours.

    Thanks Again
    Bear

  7. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135 View Post
    Howdy
    I've read through this whole thread and can't find the answer to my question.
    First... Thank You to those that have brought this to our attention.
    B. This is not to anger or argue with any one or thing.
    Third... My question after a bit of explaining...
    I live in TEXAS and have my TX CHL.
    From what I've been told and read about our (as in TX) Reciprocity Agreements with the 29 other states that we've got it with.....
    TX says... you do your's the way we do ours... so
    we'll consider yours as ours as you do the same, and
    we don't won't have to send everyone another copy of ours or you send yours.
    I took this from TXs' web site...
    ............
    TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
    WHEREAS, Section 411.173(b) of the Government Code of the State of
    Texas directs that the governor shall negotiate an agreement with any
    other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a
    concealed handgun under which a license issued by the
    other state is recognized in this state, or shall issue a proclamation that
    a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state, if the
    attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background
    check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is initialed by
    state or local authorities or an agent of the state or local authorities
    before the license is issued;
    ...................
    My question is this---
    how does this Fed Law change this?
    As has been pointed out to me.... our agreements are to treat those of other States as having ours.

    Thanks Again
    Bear
    The little gotcha is in the GFSZA. In order to be legal with a gun in an area within 1000 ft of a school property, your license must be from the state that you are in. Or meet the other exemptions in the law. Can not be reciprical based per the Feds. Fed law overrules state law. When they want it to.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135 View Post
    My question is this---
    how does this Fed Law change this?
    As has been pointed out to me.... our agreements are to treat those of other States as having ours.

    Thanks Again
    Bear
    It doesn't change it at all. Your TX CHL is still valid in the states with reciprocity. It just is NOT an exception to 18 USC 922 (q) in any state outside Texas. Other states with reciprocity CHL's are still valid in Texas. They just are NOT an exception to 18 USC 922 (q) in Texas.

  9. #178
    Reciprocity applies to state laws not to Federal laws. For instance a resident in some states can use their CWP issued by their state to bypass the NICS check but they could not use a non-resident permit to do it if that is all they had although the NR permit would work for state laws.

  10. Bear75135, the other posters have answered your question correctly. Federal law is an entirely separate body from State law. Although your TX carry permit is recognized by the laws of other States, it is not recognized by federal law for the purposes of Title 18 U.S.C. 922(q) known as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 in any State other than Texas. The fact that your Texas permit is recognized by the laws of other States does not make a bit of difference for the purposes of Title 18 U.S.C 922(q). State-level reciprocity protects you from State prison. It does not in any way protect you from going to federal prison under this law. Please contact your representatives, as well as the office of U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and express your feelings.

  11. Thanks... but you missed the question... I'm not asking about all Rec A's perse (by or in themself) I'm asking about the part... as was in your letter but you fail to mentioned... The Police background checks. The part that says... even for the state you live in, and have a permit to carry concealed... to be legal in a school zone must have police background checks, (as you said Fed Law overides states laws)
    My question was about how TX has theirs written, the text I copied, and how it was explained to me... now this is the part to pay attention to... TX says that since you do your police background checks as good as or better than we do, and we don't want to have to send everyone of you different states permit holders a TX permit (as in being issued by TX itself), we consider yours as ours.
    Back to my question... as explained to me... TX agreements does not just say... you have a permit in your state, it's good here as some states do. Maybe that's why TX has these agreements with only 29, not 48 states. TX wrote their agreements this way to cover this Fed Law.
    When someone from my STATE (TX State Att General since he writes and signs these) tells me different.
    In your letter to congress, you list agreements as being between 48 states. I guess you can say that, 48 states do have diffent agreements with others, but if I remember correctly... the most one state's permit is legal in is 33 states. Because different states have different ways of permitting, some not at all......... and the states themselve come up with these agreements
    That is why... there is not a fed law to cover concealed carry. It's left to the states.
    I don't know how other states write their agreements with others. That's for you to check out for your state. At this point, I'm told... TX agreements cover this Fed Law.
    The part that was missed of my question... which States have this covered?
    Can a state law cover what a Fed Law says?

    Bear
    Last edited by Bear75135; 02-02-2011 at 10:46 AM. Reason: spelling and missed words... my mind went faster than my fingers

Page 18 of 31 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast