Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act" - U.S. Senate

[huntrights]

This still needs your support - Please write your U.S. Senators

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/respecting-states'-rights-and-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-introduced-in-us-senate.aspx

"Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act" Introduced in U.S. Senate

Posted on March 23, 2012

For the second time in as many weeks, a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate.

On March 20, U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced Senate Bill 2213, the "Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."  NRA strongly supports this measure.  Under this self-defense bill, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by state law to carry a handgun, would be authorized to carry a handgun in any other state that issues such permits or does not prohibit concealed carry, subject to the laws of the state in which it is carried.

"Congress should recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.  "The NRA has been successfully advocating in favor of strong Right-to-Carry laws for the past 25 years.  We take a backseat to no one when it comes to the right of law-abiding Americans to carry concealed handguns for self-defense."

S. 2213 is similar to Senate Bill 2188, which was introduced last week by Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.).  S. 2188 is the companion legislation to H.R. 822, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on November 16, 2011 by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154.  NRA strongly supports H.R. 822, S. 2188 and S. 2213. (To read a recent letter of support for S. 2213 from Chris W. Cox to Sen. Thune, please click here.)  NRA also supported similar legislation in 2009.

None of these bills would affect existing state laws.  State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form.  Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to cosponsor both S. 2213 and S. 2188!

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org.  You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

© 2012 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030  1800-392-8683(VOTE)"


Links:

Write Your Rpresentative Tool
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

S.2188
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN02188:

S.2213
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN02213:

[blackdog]

Good legislation lets ask our Senators to cosponsor these Bills.

[huntrights]

It only takes a couple of minutes to write those emails.  Use the link I provided.

Write Your Rpresentative Tool
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

[Atroxus]

I am curious why 2 separate bills? Wouldn't make more sense for the sponsors to pick the best one and make a single concerted effort get it passed? 

[Bean Counter]

I am even more curious as to why the act is entitled "Respecting States Rights" when the aim of the bill is to trample all over them. I remain opposed to federal legislation of the RKBA.

[Atroxus]

I am even more curious as to why the act is entitled "Respecting States Rights" when the aim of the bill is to trample all over them. I remain opposed to federal legislation of the RKBA.

Personally I think "state rights" are about the same as "corporate rights". I am all for peoples rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you think states are exempt from? The second amendment holds less weight now *because* individual states are allowed to make their own gun laws. Constitutional law should be uniform across the nation.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[blackdog]

Bean Counter in my opinion States don't have rights they have powers as enumerated in our State and Federal Constitutions. People have "Rights" and I think this federal legislation is a step forward. I will however concede your arguments may have some merit.

[Bean Counter]

We've talked about this before, ad nauseum. But since it was posted again, I felt that I should put my  in again.

Some are forgetting how much easier it is to pass subsequent legislation once a precedent is set. Last time we discussed this I brought up the example of the income tax but didn't get many replies to my thoughts.  It  took a constitutional amendment and had to go through a super majority of the states. Now however It just takes Congress and the president to add more taxes. Now our capital gains, dividends, and estate at death are all taxed  When the income tax was initially passed, the marginal rate was 5%. Now its 35%. Ass hat liberals want to raise that rate even higher as they never tire of spending someone elses money.


Beware opening the door to federal legislation of the RKBA.

[huntrights]

 

Here's my opinion. 

Since it would be very difficult (most likely impossible) for an individual to fully understand ALL of the political and legal wrangling that goes on regarding guns, gun ownership, gun rights, gun transportation, differences in gun laws between states, etc., we have to place our trust in organizations like the NRA, USSA, and SCI to research these things using their extensive resources, experience, and expertise.  These organizations promote legislation, and take actions that are in our best interests as a gun owners and hunters.  That’s why many of us have joined their ranks and contribute to their causes.  As individuals, we can work at the grassroots and local level, but we depend on them to fight the larger, more complex battles in our best interests as a gun owners and hunters even though we, at the grassroots level, are their foundation.  They have the legal staff and legislative expertise to determine what will protect our gun and hunting rights overall.  Perhaps they do not always make perfect decisions, but I believe they are in a far more informed position to be able to make good decisions on what will protect our gun and hunting rights.  They are telling us this legislation will be beneficial for all gun owners throughout the nation.  Personally, I trust what they are telling us.

Bean Counter: If you have legitimate concerns about the wording in the legislation, then please contact the NRA and those that drafted the legislation and let them know, in detail, why you have your concerns.  Perhaps you have thought of something they haven’t.  Frankly, I don’t know of any legislation that’s perfect and good forever; that’s why it keeps changing.  That’s also why we have to continuously be on guard to prevent legislation from being passed that takes away our rights.


 


Links:

Write Your Rpresentative Tool
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

S.2188
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN02188:

S.2213
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN02213:

[huntrights]

Exploding Myths About National Right to Carry (HR 822)

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2011/exploding-the-myths-about-national-right-to-carry-(hr-822).aspx?s=H.R.+822&st=&ps=

[KyleMB123]

I agree with Bean Counter. This will open the door for more national legislation of firearms, concealed firearms in particular. Any inkling that something positive will come out of new legislation from D.C. concerning firearms is delusional, but only time will tell.

[bearpaw]

Here's another consideration:

If we are able to pass national legislation to support firearms then they already have the ability to pass legislation to infringe on the 2nd. I think this has already been proven in the past. So I think that anything we can pass to support guns, then we should try to pass it. I doubt the NRA would try to do anything that would have a negative impact on the 2nd.

[Atroxus]

I agree with Bean Counter. This will open the door for more national legislation of firearms, concealed firearms in particular. Any inkling that something positive will come out of new legislation from D.C. concerning firearms is delusional, but only time will tell.

You both seem to be forgetting that we have numerous precedents for national restrictions on firearms already...like the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act and the Brady bill. It would be nice if we could start getting some legislation that actually moves us back towards what the founding fathers intended instead of missing opportunities and allowing the gun grabbers to keep pushing us farther and farther off track. 

[Bean Counter]

That was a nice letter from NRA.

My friends: I am not actively opposing this insofar as to call my legislators and asking them to vote no. I am just throwing my opinion out for caveat emptor warning. Those who pushed for it will have a subsequent responsibility to maintain vigilance against related infringements.  It would be a big mistake for something like this to pass, and then people quit contributing to the same lobbying entities (ie NRA) that made it happen because they slip into complacency.

My main objection, even more so than the national precedent for latter legislation, is that this bill would also inherently legitimize the notion that a permit should be required to carry a gun. If we're going to push for something nationally, it should be for constitutional (ie, permit less) carry.

[Atroxus]

That was a nice letter from NRA.

My friends: I am not actively opposing this insofar as to call my legislators and asking them to vote no. I am just throwing my opinion out for caveat emptor warning. Those who pushed for it will have a subsequent responsibility to maintain vigilance against related infringements.  It would be a big mistake for something like this to pass, and then people quit contributing to the same lobbying entities (ie NRA) that made it happen because they slip into complacency.

My main objection, even more so than the national precedent for latter legislation, is that this bill would also inherently legitimize the notion that a permit should be required to carry a gun. If we're going to push for something nationally, it should be for constitutional (ie, permit less) carry.

I agree with a lot of this....in a perfect world we would not need permits to carry. I see the reciprocity legislation as a stepping stone towards national constitutional carry, rather than as a stopping point though. I hope that other supporters see it the same way.