dksuddeth

National concealed carry reciprocity bill

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns` (R-Fla.) national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill, H.R. 4547, would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its own borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. H.R. 4547 would also apply to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; 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.


I can't believe i've not heard of this before but this looks like an awesome opportunity to secure our 2nd amendment rights.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Didn't see anything in that bill that talked about letting anyone who wants to join a militia. So I don't see how it effects your 2nd amendment rights.

I DO see it as an attempt to get the federal government to illegally usurp state powers without cause. The constitution says that anything not dealt with by the feds is up for the states to deal with. This law would cancel out one state's laws (no CCP's) because of ANOTHER state's laws. NOT a federal law. I don't see this law standing up in court.

Mojo_PeiPei

I agree Shakran, but maybe this part of the bill will some how work around that.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

shakran

Except that the driver license thing is NOT a federal mandate. States recognize each other's driver licenses, that's true, but they do that of their own accord. A good example is North Dakota. They specifically say that, even if you are licensed to drive in another state, if you are under the age of 16, you may not drive in North Dakota.

In fact, the federal government has NEVER attempted to regulate driver licenses in any way until after 9/11. And now all they're trying to do is get the identification properties of the licenses standard - they're still not regulating whether or not states can reject driver licenses from another state.

Ustwo

Don't let Daley fool ya, he and his whole family are closet Republicans.

This is from a VERY inside source, though I won't devulge any details

They also know what side their bread is buttered on.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pocon1

nothing to say

dksuddeth

seeing how the 'militia' is defined as all able bodied men and has nothing to do with standing armies your point is moot. Why must be people continue to misinterpret the second amendment?

the bill of rights are guarantees of individual rights, not collective rights, therefore the right of 'the people' refers to the individual, not the state.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

seeing as how a "well regulated militia" cannot be defined by even the biggest nutjob as "everyone and his brother gets a gun and there's no organizational structure to it whatsoever," that idea is fundamentally flawed.


Additionally, when you consider the intent of the framers (which is a valid legal measure used by con-law interpreters such as judges all the time) you realize that the framers never intended to let anyone get hold of an uzi. This ammendment was clearly meant to allow for well regulated militias (hint - if you don't even get together as a militia to practice, ever, then you're not a well regulated anything) to have muskets. It was not meant to allow urban gangs to have assault rifles.

seretogis

First off, I am not even going to bother to address the ignorant misinterpretations of the Second Amendment in this thread or references to weapons which are clearly for "shock value."

Anyhow, I am licensed and registered to carry a concealed weapon in Minnesota. Because of this, I may also carry in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia because these states choose to recognize and honor my CCW permit as valid and sufficient to allow me to carry a concealed weapon in their state. To make this national and in doing so force all the states which do not currently honor a MN CCW permit to honor it is contrary to the very idea of states' rights and so should be opposed by any freedom-loving non-federalist American. Limiting conceal/carry privileges is not unconstitutional in terms of the Second Amendment, but allowing the federal government to override the states' right to regulate it is.

Be careful of what you wish for. It would be nice if all 49 of the other states recognized my MN CCW permit but that really is up to the constituents of those other states -- not me, and not the federal government.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

dksuddeth

I guess you've never bothered to study and understand any US history because those 'nutjobs' defined it as exactly that..meaning that everyone and his brother, father, cousins, and sons. It goes back to before the country was even formed.

The America of 1791 was not a superpower. National pride aside, it was a backward, recently colonial frontier. Its entire history had been one of war and threats of war. The French in the north, the Spanish in the south and the Indian Nations had all threaten the initial settlements. Moreover the colonies, from their various origins, had been "independent states" loosely tied together by their collective master the British Crown. In every case they had begun their precarious existence without a standing army of any kind. (Not unusual, in the early colonial period even the British Crown tended to raise its armies "at need" and disband them after the crisis had passed.) The colonies had followed their English traditions and organised their defence around a governor's guard (usually very small - more a personal defence force than an army), an organised "watch" to perform police duties (police in the modern sense are a hundred years in the future) and a levee en masse of every able bodied man in times of emergency.

As time went on and the colonies grew this initial arrangement was supplemented by garrisons of regular British troops, part time colonial reserves - of various levels of service and organisation- and Indian alliances. By the time of the Revolution the old practice of levee en masse was going out of use, at least in the more settled areas. Wars, for example the French and Indian War (1755-60), were conducted by regular British Troops supported by American "Militia" regiments mobilised for the war.

However, the early levee en masse tradition of the Militia, what might be called the "people's militia" continued. (We might note here that the Militia of formed bodies of troops was sometimes called the "regular", "standing" or "formed" Militia. The levee en masse Militia was often referred to as the "unorganised" Militia. The fact that there were two "types" of Militia both referred to as "the Militia" can be confusing.) As late as the 1860's we see Americans, North and South, responding to a military emergency by spontaneously forming regiments and electing their own officers. This is normally presented as a quaint example of Civil War enthusiasm. However, in reality this is the living continuation of the old levee en masse tradition of the American citizen soldier.


You are sorely mistaken. The intent of the framers in guaranteeing the natural right of all free men to keep and bear arms was so that they COULD be an impromptu standing force which means that they could indeed have uzi's IF the standing armies used them. Since the current standing army does NOT use uzi's, this is irrelevant, HOWEVER, they do use automatic weapons and thus, according to the intent of the framers, so should the 'militia', which is all able bodied free men.

well regulated was not defined as all the people getting out and marching or practicing close combat drills. All it meant was that the people would have their readily maintained arms and know how to use them properly when necessary, being able to gather together and freely elect their officers and when done, go back home to the farm. As far as your statement about the 'urban gangs', this is your strawman. The framers wrote the bill of rights for free law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Americans of this generation were well aware that their success in the Revolution had rested on them having the means to revolt i.e. arms. Further, the Crown had responded to their civil disobedience with direct attempts to disarm the colonists i.e. Lexington and Concord. Hence the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had a keen awareness of the political implications of armed vs. unarmed. Their intense last straw reaction to the British attempt to seize their arms was based on the realisation that a loss of arms meant that the colonists would be helpless. Helpless before the Crown, or the Indians, or bandits or anyone else who wanted to take a swipe at them. This condition of unarmed defencelessness and the subservience to any armed party that it implied was the match that set off the Revolution. It is also a major driving force in the current desire of many Americans to retain their arms.

In the colonial period, to men representing semi-autonomous states and very nervous about an over-powerful Federal Government, the right of individuals to arms was essential. Hence the need they felt to re-assert the individual right to keep and bear arms by including it in certain "declaratory and restrictive clauses" designed to prevent the Federal Government from any "abuse of its powers."

all statements in italics are courtesy of "The 2nd Amendment: A Historical Understanding" by Bruce Gold


Would you not agree that when individual states are in violation of the constitution by denying constitutional rights to its citizens, that it would be the responsibility of the federal government to step in and restore those constitutional rights according to the 14th amendment?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Xazy

Got to love the US Federal Government. Rockstar games are responsible for kids’ violence, since the game teaches violence. But guns & guns companies no problem. Now we cannot sue the companies since they have no responsibility of making sure that kids do not get guns and hell now everyone can have a gun in the house. But let us still complain about the game grand theft auto. I guess NRA really is the most powerful lobby.

dksuddeth

not to threadjack my own thread, but we already have laws that make it illegal for minors to purchase handguns, so why is it that you feel gun manufacturers should be held liable for the illegal purchases from gun stores or illegal street deals?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

The key phrase here is *well regulated.* Why would they put *well regulated* in there if they really meant *no regulation?*\

What in hell are you talking about? Even if we interpret the second incorrectly and use it to say anyone can have a gun, it doesn't say ANYTHING about "but you can only have whatever the army uses." IF the second really meant anyone can have "arms" then it does not specify what "arms" you can or cannot have. If your interpretation of the 2nd was correct, I should be able to have a sword, an uzi, a rocket launcher, a tank, a trunk monkey. . whatever I want.


I'm sorry, but the framers had better grammar skills than that. If that's truly what they meant, then they woudl have said "an IMPROMTU militia being necessary. . . " NOT "well regulated."

OK, remove the gang reference and replace it with "untrained guy who never held a gun before but who thinks it'll keep him safe no matter what." He's still obeying the law, but he's certainly not someone that anyone, including gun advocates, would want posessing a gun.

Even if we interpret the 2nd incorrectly as you do, it doesn't say anything about the government not being allowed to regulate HOW you keep those arms. It doesn't give you the right to hide your gun when you're walking around. CCW permits are not constitutionally protected no matter how you interpret the 2nd.

Kadath

Yep. Like the government should force every state to accept gay marriage under the same amendment.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Jazz

The first statement is inaccurate but the second one is right on. Richard Daley is only interested in what is going to glorify Richard Daley. As was the father, as is the son. If Daley can work with a politician, their party affiliation doesn't matter. That's why he torpedoed Pachard in 98 in favor of Ryan, who was an old school liberal Republican (one of the last of THAT breed).

dksuddeth

In order for YOU to interpret the constitution correctly, YOU must use the same definitions that THEY used. "WELL REGULATED" meant well prepared. If you wish, I'll be happy to throw up about a dozen different quotations by those very founding fathers in order to show you what they meant by 'well regulated' and 'militia'.


But if you interpret the amendment correctly, going by the definitions and intent by logical reasonings as afforded by the written arguments of the founders, you SHOULD be able to come to the conclusion that the 'militia' and 'arms' meant that, if necessary, the PEOPLE can protect themselves from militaristic oppression like they had experienced in the past at the hands of King George. You again grab at a strawman argument with the tanks and rocket launcher argument. Nobody with common sense is going to logically feel that we should have tanks, nukes, and B2 bombers but anybody with a shred of intelligence SHOULD know that in order to preserve our rights and protect them from a government, we would need weaponry equal to the standing army, i.e. automatic weapons. We, with intelligence, realize that this has to be the case because society would rapidly decay should the criminal element obtain tanks and rocket launchers easily. Please stop trying to use such a ridiculous point as nobody is seriously advocating that people should be able to buy heavy military weaponry at a gun shop.


once again, in order to understand what the framers meant, use their own arguments and definitions of that period, not yours in this day and age.



which is why almost every state that has a concealed license law REQUIRES a training class and background check to obtain one. I'll go one further on you and state that at least half of all licensed carriers are better able to handle a handgun than most cops are simply because the licensed carrier is more likely to be enthusiastic about knowing how to use the gun and will hit the range alot more than most officers who are only required to qualify once a year.

It is YOU that are misinterpreting the 2nd simply by you IGNORING the 'shall not be infringed' part. As far as concealing the weapon not being constitutional, how would you feel about everybody open carrying the weapon? Your answer alone will tell whether or not CCWs are constitutional.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

you would have to be able to point out which of the first 13 amendments guarantees the right of the people to marry before I could apply the 14th to it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

Proof? I've never seen anything remotely resembling this kind of survey - meaning I don't know how you (or any pollster) can accurately collect that sort of qualitative data. Where are you getting your information or are you pulling this out of your ass? Apologies will be issued upon receipt of independent, verifiable data.


I don't follow your arguement. If society should be armed, which seems to be what your advocating, then why shouldn't everybody carry their weapon in the open? Personally, I'd prefer to know if someone was armed rather than having to guess. I also think that as a business owner, I have the right to not allow people who are armed into my place of business. Check your gun at the door if you need to, but don't bring it in here. It's the same as a lit cigarette or pornography. If I don't want them in here, I can ban them.

dksuddeth

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.
* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."187
* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."

Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.158
158: Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, “Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’”, 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000.159 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent
crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.
159: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

A few states allow open carry at this time. Of those states, two of them (WI and WA) have no state pre-emption which means localities can have their own ordinances concerning open carry and have done so in a way that all the police need to have to arrest you for 'causing alarm' is for ANY person to freak out because you are wearing a gun and call 911. This is the primary reason that CCW either should be allowed OR all open carry states to have pre-emption statutes so the local sheriff can't decide that he'd rather not have the people in his town or city armed and arrest them. As a private business owner, you do indeed have the right not to have weapons in your store, but will the armed robber(s) follow your humble request and move on to the next store? probably not and IF/WHEN they should decide that your place of business looks profitable, do you think that it would be helpful if one or more of your 'law abiding customers' were there and armed to help you defend yourself and place of business? I certainly would.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

I hadn't run across these numbers before, although I'm troubled by the use of the phrase "innocent person". The MP shot by the cop in the other thread could be classified as an "innocent person" because he had not committed a crime, but the cop certainly hit what he was aiming for. The term "innocent bystander" would alieviate my concerns about how they collected their data, but by and large I'll accept that cops are more likely to miss. Certainly circumstances are going to dictate a lot of these numbers (i.e. shooting a hostage being used at a distance, needing to fire after a high-speed pursuit, most civilian shooting happen at closer quarters than police shootings, etc.).

I still think that you pulled the 50% number completely out of your ass, and I don't see where you've proven that point.

dksuddeth

If you still wish to think that, nothing I say will probably ever change your mind. I know that someone else on this board accused me of pulling a number out of my ass and I haven't heard anything about it after proving myself right. I base my number upon my experience with other gun owners. Alot of us are either former military or born and raised rural folks who hunted during our youths and in to our young adulthood. I, like others, take my aim seriously but this is not to say that all cops do not. certainly the small town cops I grew up around took their marksmanship seriously while bigger city police officers tend to just concern themselves with making sure they qualify the one time a year. Again, this is not a generalization of all police officers so take it for what you think its worth. I know that those who are anti 2nd will think I'm a nutjob pulling stats out of my ass while those with real experience most likely will agree with me.

The 'innocent bystander', I would assume, would most likely be someone not involved with the incident whatsoever. The MP that was shot was NOT an innocent bystander, he was a suspect at the time. A hostage is not an innocent 'bystander', they are an innocent hostage(victim at the time).

I still stand by my statement that legal guns in the hands of legally licensed individuals are more likely to be safer and more professional about their firearms than law enforcement, on average.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Reading this, what does it specifically have to do with concealed weapons and, more to the point, handguns?

Seems to me, a handgun (concealed or not) has little to do with raising a militia to keeping a government in check.

Get yourself a rifle or a shotgun.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

It says 'military style firearm' and we used handguns while I was a marine. I'm sure that they haven't changed that. We can nitpick about this or that but the historical documents and constitution plainly state to 'keep and bear arms', bear means to carry. Now, if all the states were forced to abide by the constitution and not prosecute open carry then i'm sure that people wouldn't have a problem doing that, I know I wouldn't, but you know as well as I do that the nuttier bradys and anti gun groups would hound every firearm carrier in the hopes of causing an incident in order to further their agenda, therefore, concealed makes better sense. If you don't see it, you don't have to worry about it.

It's also not just about keeping a government in check, its about being able to defend yourself and family or your fellow man. Let's not forget that there are people out there that prey on the weak. we call them criminals.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

WillyPete

My question is, would this make those NRA supporters more willing to submit to more rigorous data keeping of firearm licensees, required submissions of sheel and rifling samples and national registry to which they have long been opposed, in order to gain a privilege they have long been asking for by claiming that more concealed carries decrease violent crimes?

Also, will there be an expected surge of handgun sales in states that are easier to give CCWs? Will this require voter or resident registration in a state in order to acquire such a CCW so that you can carry in the 'real' state that you live in? and how would that affect federal tax budgets for those states that require that for handing out CCWs just as you need to change your Driver license should you reside in a state for an extended period?

dksuddeth

No, there is already a substantial amount of record keeping of firearms with serial numbers and ballistics/rifling samples are useless because most barrels can be changed out or the rifling characteristics changed. On top of that, registration of firearms can be a pre-cursor to large scale confiscation as we've seen in new orleans after katrina. You are also incorrectly viewing it as 'gaining a priviledge' when its a natural right of the people.

There has been surges of handgun sales when states pass CCW laws but not as much as one would think. Most of the new licensees already owned a gun at home and the license just allowed them to carry the weapon on them afterwards.

voter registration is not required, nor should it be, and some states even issue 'non-resident' licenses for varying purposes state by state. Most of the states that issue CCW licenses also have reciprocity with other states or outright honor the licenses from other states, for example Indiana recognizes and honors Texas CCW licenses. Indiana is an open carry state but makes Texas license holders follow the law by carrying concealed. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

Every state that licenses charges a fee, whether thats for revenue or just to cover the processing costs is something I don't know.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."