H.R. 822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 by Wulfenstar

There have been many studies on the effect of concealed carry on crime and as you might suspect the results have been determine by what side of the issue the researchers are on. Because of the controversial nature of the subject I doubt any study in this area would be considered valid by all. One thing that is indisputable is that violent crime has significantly fallen in the US in recent years, what you chose to attribute the fall to will probably be based on your personal biases and not on any facts presented. We all base our opinions on "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" that support our thesis, its human nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is a terrible law. It essentially empowers the states to create Federal-level legislation, and nullifies the desires of the citizenry in each individual state.

Reciprocity currently exists between willing states, and I would not press it into unwilling states.

If the Supreme Court upholds each states' right to decide the issue of carry for themselves, then it is wrong to use a backdoor to circumvent their will.

This is a battle that must be fought either within each state, or if you truly believe it to be a Constitutional right, then through an appeals process.

And if the Supreme Court says it is not a Constitutional right, then through an amendment process.

Circumventing the will of your neighbors isn't right, even when you get the result you're looking for. Next time, it may be your will that is skirted around.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Circumventing the will of your neighbors isn't right, even when you get the result you're looking for. Next time, it may be your will that is skirted around.

--Anthony

The summary of the legislation I found seems to indicate that you are incorrect.

Official Summary
2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Then this law would seem to do nothing?

It allows a concealed carrier to boldly carry concealed only where the states allow him to carry concealed, and only within their strictures for doing so?

Wulf represented it differently, my apologies.

What is the law for?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:36 AM

Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.

Hello,

So it would violate the restrictions of the state, if the state does not already allow such as part of its current regulations.

But it seems a much lesser infringement.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.

Hello,

So it would violate the restrictions of the state, if the state does not already allow such as part of its current regulations.

But it seems a much lesser infringement.

--Anthony

I see no infringement just equal protection. Under the current system permit holders from Florida might be able to carry freely in Kansas while a permit holder from Colorado would be arrested just because reciprocity hasn't been negotiated between the states.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Essentially it says that if I have a valid permit in Texas, it would be valid everywhere.

It would be a huge blow against gun control. My only issue with it is that I don't like the idea of needing a permit in the first place.

I hope it passes, and then someone realizes that the whole thing is silly and gets rid of the permit process.

But its a step, maybe not EXACTLY in the right direction but sort of diagonally.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:08 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I see no infringement just equal protection."

Hello,

If it was an equal protection issue, then it could be handled on that basis in the courts without additional legislation. No, this is forcing reciprocity on states that have not chosen it for themselves. It would be incredibly convenient for me, but I’m not sure that makes it right.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

“Essentially it says that if I have a valid permit in Texas, it would be valid everywhere. “

Hello Wulf,

The excerpt/brief Kirk quotes suggests otherwise. In any event, if your interpretation is true, it would be an 'end run around the Constitution.' Which I frown upon. If something is a Constitutional right, then that's the way to approach it. If it's a state right, then that's the way to approach it.

You can't frown on the Fed Health Care mandate and then cheer a Fed reciprocity mandate.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:34 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thats the problem. Its not a states rights issue, its a Constitutionally, guaranteed right...

Imagine, if in some states, you needed a permit to stand on a soapbox and speak your mind? To write a letter in your home, to talk on the phone, to buy a book, to listen to certain kinds of music..

Indeed, that is what it would be like if you needed a permit to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment freedom.

Imagine also, if you were allowed to read a book in one state, but were jailed if caught with it in another?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I read it to say that if you get a permit in one state then with this bill you can carry in any state, you just have to follow your home state's rules. Really, what's the point of states deciding anything? "It's New York rules in every state."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If something is a Constitutional right, then that's the way to approach it. If it's a state right, then that's the way to approach it.

You can't frown on the Fed Health Care mandate and then cheer a Fed reciprocity mandate.

--Anthony

If we relied solely on the courts to enforce the Constitution we'd be in pretty bad shape. All in office are sworn to uphold the Constitution and hold equal responsibility for doing so. It's exactly because the issue does involve a Constitutional right that makes Federal intervention appropriate. It's no different than the Feds enforcing civil rights laws in the south.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats the problem. Its not a states rights issue, its a Constitutionally, guaranteed right...

Imagine, if in some states, you needed a permit to stand on a soapbox and speak your mind? To write a letter in your home, to talk on the phone, to buy a book, to listen to certain kinds of music..

Indeed, that is what it would be like if you needed a permit to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment freedom.

Imagine also, if you were allowed to read a book in one state, but were jailed if caught with it in another?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Hello Wulf,

Again, if this right is Constitutional, then it needs to be approached on that basis. You only feel the need to create additional legislation (of far less authority than the Constitution) because you don't think a Constitutional appeal will work. If a Liberal were trying to create legislation like this, but addressing an issue you abhor, you'd bite their head off. If it's a Constitutional right, then take it up on that battlefield. If it's NOT a right granted by Constitutional authority, then the Feds have no say in the matter anyhow.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Like I said, Im not exactly in favor of this.

Yet even after 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, places like DC, NY, Chicago, and California refuse to honor the 2nd Amendment.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is exactly like gay marriage. States have reciprocity with respect to marriage licenses ... a marriage license in UT is good in all 50 states. But SOME states issue same-sex marriage licenses. Other states have brought up the idea of eliminating reciprocity towards gay marriage, because they disagree with it. What if the Federal government were to step in and REQUIRE that all states recognize all marriage licenses, regardless of partners' gender?

Then, there is the issue of slavery, the big "states rights" issue. I recall that a war was fought over it. The argument of the South at the time was that they should be able to have slavery, as it was a state's right. The Federal argument could have been that slavery was a Constitutional violation (altho arguments could have been made on both sides).

So, what happens? If a license is issued in one state which is required to be recognized in all 50 states, then one of several things will happen. The first is that law enforcement in ALL states will demand a national database, otherwise they will never know who is duly licensed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 7:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Again, if this right is Constitutional, then it needs to be approached on that basis. You only feel the need to create additional legislation (of far less authority than the Constitution) because you don't think a Constitutional appeal will work."

The Constitutional "appeal" has already been made AND won. Yet the places I've mentioned refuse to honor it.

I don't want a national ID card for gun rights. Its a RIGHT, you dont need to sign up for it. Or be tracked.

The whole gun-control argument has been dis-proven. Its time for it to end.

Constitutional carry is the only way to go.

But like I said, this is a step, even a shuffling step, in that direction.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 11:16 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

If I remember those ruling only disallowed blanket bans, not controls.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35 AM