Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors

Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors

Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill with more than 25 Cosponsors

Today, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to recognize national reciprocity for gun owners who can legally carry concealed firearms in the state where they reside.

The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, was introduced with a huge show of support. Twenty-nine Senators sponsored or cosponsored the bill, and this is, in large part, thanks to you! Because of all your efforts over the last week, the following Senators signed on in support of the legislation:

Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Lugar (IN), McConnell (KY), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Risch (ID), Rubio (FL), Sessions (AL), Thune (SD), Toomey (PA) Vitter (LA) and Wicker (MS).

This bill, the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, treats concealed carry as a RIGHT belonging to the people – not a privilege granted by the government.

“Rather than establish a national standard, our bill will ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to carry concealed firearms while at the same time respecting the laws of the respective states they visit,” said Sen. Thune.

The Thune-Vitter bill provides national recognition for concealed carry permit holders (who have obtained one from their home states), but it also recognizes the right to carry for residents of Constitutional Carry states (where no permit is required).

This is a huge win for gun owners! Constitutional Carry is currently the law in five states, and more than a dozen states have legislation to move in that direction.

A competing bill, S. 2188, offers reciprocity ONLY for permit holders — and thus it would prevent many gun owners, who can legally carry in their home states, from carrying firearms when they travel out-of-state. This compromise bill, sponsored by anti-gun Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV) and Max Baucus (MT), would deal a severe blow to the momentum we have in passing Constitutional Carry at the state level.

It is crucial that Senators support the Constitutional Carry-friendly bill, and to oppose any efforts to weaken the Thune-Vitter legislation.

ACTION: Contact your Senators right away. Thank those who have sponsored S. 2213. If your Senators have not yet cosponsored, please urge them to do so … and to stay off of the Begich-Manchin bill.

There are two different letters, depending on whether your Senators are cosponsoring S. 2213. By clicking here, the appropriate letter will be automatically selected.

,

  • CharonPDX

    I’d like to read the text of this. I’m curious how this handles constitutional carry states… While yes, Constitutional Carry should be federal law – if you’re claiming to “respect states rights”, how do they handle this differently than the competing bill?  If you’re “respecting states’ rights”, how does saying “A Vermont/Arizona/Alaska/etc drivers license counts as a CHL” to a state that has stringent standards respect that state’s rights?

    I hope to see this batch of sponsors also sponsor a bill to require all states to recognize all other states’ marriage licenses next.

  • illinoisshowershoe

    As a resident of Illinois, it just feels great to be apart of this action.  LOL

    • Redneckfuller1977

      thats funny …lol

    • Gray Ryder

      Quess again. Unless Illinois reverses it’s political hold on anti-gun legislation the citizens, thereof, are restricted from having a non-resient  CCW  honored in any state.

  • 2nd Ammendment Supporter

    Support the Second Ammendment and contact your Senators to express your support of S. 2213.

    • Gray Ryder

      It is a total waste of time for Illinois residents to attempt to sway their elected representaives when they are all Obumbo puppets.

  • Omer

    I have a good feeling that this will pass in the Senate.  That being said, I also believe that Obama will veto the bill and do everything he can to stop it from becoming law.

    • MassGuns4life

      If this Passes the Senate it would most likely be veto proof, just like the AWB ban expired in 2004, these people will try anything to cause us problems and they keep losing each time, we will over come these people by the ballot box this election.

      • StoutCortez

        I think that, if they have to, the Democrats will resort to the filibuster to stop it. If somehow the bill does pass, Obama will veto it.

        But I hope I’m wrong.

    • Gray Ryder

      No doubt about Obumbo. His is an overflow Chicago cesspool anti-gun  politician.

  • Taurus382

    Did everyone catch the phrase “issued in your home state”? If you currently carry on a non-resident permit, it will not be honored in states that don’t already honor it. If your state is not a “shall issue” or constitutional carry state, you are no better off than you are now. My understanding of the other bills was that any state’s permit must be honored.

    • Gray Ryder

      Questionable, Illinois residents that have non-resident CCW, from various other shall issue states, are up a familiar river of political cesspool overflow without a paddle. It is my understanding that all individuals being issued a CCW, in their state of residence, will be honored  in every state that has an open carry right and/or a CCW legislation issue provision.

  • Rich Fenimore

    Thanks for pointing that out Taurus…So if I live in a May Issue state like NJ, visitors from another state where it is easy to carry could come to my state and be able to protect themselves…but not a law abiding citizen like myself who has the unfortunate luck to live here.

  • After reading the text of HR822, S2188, and commentary on the yet-to-be-released S2213, I have to say that I really don’t see the Senate bills as being at-odds with one another. S2188 matches closely with the already-passed HR822 (though, it lacks the GAO effectiveness study), while S2213 seems to be have elements more ambitious and some less ambitious than its counterpart.

    Ultimately, the differences between HR822 and S2188 being nominal by comparison, I see as more likely these being ironed out in a conference committee. That said, I wish the best for all three pieces of legislation. I look at Maryland carry groups right now and have to laugh: So much weight is being placed on the decision in Woollard v. Sheridan. I seem to recall one group saying that the decision rendered legislation in Annapolis pointless. All the eggs: Meet one basket. There’s simply no telling what the judges are going to do at higher levels, so having legislative backup makes sense.

    With regard to S2188 and S2213: What’s the danger in supporting both?!

  • John Coleman

    I just hope any of these bills helps.   We can’t keep going like this and something needs to happen.

  • Let me make sure I’ve got this right.   The actual Constitution written by the founding fathers themselves gave us this right.   But we need additional Bills four hundred years later to actually receive these rights?   Does this mean we’ll also now need separate bills for the right to assemble, speak, etc.?

    • YUP! Here in the USSA we have no rights as you already know.

    • Gray Ryder

      Give them time. The more fodder that is  provided for them as possible  fuel of thought.The more  the political idots will come up with something. Oh yes, forget Illinois in any shape manner and form in throughts of honoring their citizens Constitutional rights. There is no such thing in Illinois. The politicians lie in their Oath of Office and do everything in their power to control the Illinois citizens. Illinois stands alone in antigun legislation. How can 49 other states be so wrong in respecting the  Constitutional rights of the of the citizens of their states ? Then Illinois politicians by so cockeyed correct by the denial of their citizen’s their Constional rights.This is nation build on of people, for the people and by the people. The Constitution is nothing to be considered the elite of corruted politicians thereof. Also, consider of the Illinois Firearm’s laws when passing throught the state with your firearm in your vehicle. No CCW is honored in Illinois. Therefore,when wishing to purchase any product and/or  traveling through Illinois have second thoughts of such. Stop and realize that the tax collected from the money you spend is being used to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens.  Happy Trails,   Gray Ryder

  • It is about time… Law abiding Americans should not have to jump through hoops it carry a firearm.

  • StoutCortez

    Usually some politically savvy politician or analyst comments on a bill’s chances of passage. It is strange that no one seems to be saying anything one way or another on this one.

  • Nor1313

    It’s difficult enough sometimes to figure out what is legal and what is not in your own state,  much less traveling from state to state. I know, each state has it’s own way of doing things, but this is our right as Unites State citizens to defend ourselves if we choose. 

    In one state you can do this, in the next state you can’t do that. For once, use some common sense folks!  Enough of the “walking on egg shells” every time my family and I travel!

    • Gray Ryder

      I, as an Illinois resident, cannot carry in my own state. However, I do have 4 different non-resident  issues of CCW, which makes me legal in 42 of the 50 states. In Illinois, which is legal, I carry a mace/ pepper spray  UA belt holstered gun canister .  Granted it is not the equal to a lethal weapon.  However, it is effective within  21 to 25 feet. Thereby, taking down the largest of any aggressor . The other plus, in the use of the said the said mace/pepper UA holstered gun, it has, an average of 6 to 7 applications with a 3 year shelf life. The greatest plus is it can be carried in lthe majority of the US without any concerns. Passing across state lines is of no concern. Just be advised that you do not dare enter into Canada and Mexico with the mace/pepperspray holstered canister gun on your belt and/or within your personal car or luggage. In entering a  local county court house, on personal business,  I informed  the law enforcement officer, at the  magnetometer station, that I had a holstered mace/pepperspray device concealed under my shirt. He, in turn, ask to examine it. Then, he returned it and ask where he could purchase one for his wife and daughter.

  • Mike

    Confused
    I am a California resident. If I obtain a Utah non-resident permit, will California be forced to recognise it under either of these bills?

Quantcast
[index]
[index]