Reciprocity Bill introduced with more than 25 Cosponsors

[Kain]

http://gunowners.org/a03202012.htm

To keep the Senate Gavel in the hands of Harry Reid

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), Wicker (MS) Moran (KS) and Roberts (KS).

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.   

[washelkhntr]

But of course Oregon didnt jump on board with this!   

[pianoman9701]

And, do you think our esteemed Senators Cant-do-well and the grandmother in tennis shoes will support it? Not going to happen.

[Atroxus]

I can't find any new info, anyone know what happened with this? Is it still being argued or what?

[Bean Counter]

 

And, do you think our esteemed Senators Cant-do-well and the grandmother in tennis shoes will support it? Not going to happen.

I hope not. I oppose this measure. 

[Atroxus]

And, do you think our esteemed Senators Cant-do-well and the grandmother in tennis shoes will support it? Not going to happen.

I hope not. I oppose this measure. 

Why on earth would you oppose CCW reciprocity?

[Bean Counter]

I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.

[Atroxus]

I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? 

[pianoman9701]

I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? 

States like OR, who require taking a course before issuing a CWP, would no longer be able to require the course if someone had a CWP from another state. The negative fallout in their eyes is going to be state's rights over fed law. From our perspective, it's a win all around.

[Atroxus]

I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? 

States like OR, who require taking a course before issuing a CWP, would no longer be able to require the course if someone had a CWP from another state. The negative fallout in their eyes is going to be state's rights over fed law. From our perspective, it's a win all around.

I still don't see the down side....personally I think the second amendment should be the only thing we need for concealed carry. For now though I think that anything that moves us closer to that is a good thing and should be pushed for.

[pianoman9701]

Atrox, I agree with you. Just answering your question.

[Bean Counter]

It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. 

I made the tough choice to leave Washington, feeling that it is overrun by socialists. If the RKBA becomes prohibitively strangled at the federal level, there will be nowhere left to run. Be careful what you wish for.

[CP]

As much as I’d like to carry in OR and Nevada, I think this bill is another overreach into state’s rights.  As written it is under the guise of interstate and foreign commerce and its constitutionality would probably have to be ruled on by the Supreme Court.  Even if it would be held up doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

[KyleMB123]

This bill is pointless. The Fed gov't making another law that doesn't need to exist, further legitimizing the violations of the second amendent, and infringing on the tenth amendment in the process.

By supporting this bill you are also supporting the state mandates that you must carry a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm. State mandates which are unconstitutional.

[Bean Counter]

 

The activist SCOTUS upheld Obamacare as a tax despite the Dear Leader's claims to the contrary. I just cringe at how even Antonin Scalia opened the door to new gun bans in his 2008 opinion. The less the feds have too do with the RKBA, the better. 

[Heredoggydoggy]

If Harry Reid has anything to do with it, I'm against it.  There has to be an ulterior motive there someplace.  And if any Democrats are for it, you can bet Senator Cant-vote-well, And the Granny-in-Tennis Shoes will vote for it.  I'm just glad that lying sack Inslee won't be in on it.  But if he gets in as Governor, he'll suggest it anyway! 

[KyleMB123]

I would also like to point out that Rand "sell-out" Paul is sponsoring this garbage bill. Thanks for attempting to expand federal gov't power and further legitimize infringements on the second amendment you constitutional scholar you. Rand must have been adopted.

[Special T]

I do think this bill puts many of us pro 2nd admendment types in a catch 22. I beliver we all know it is our consitutional right to bear arms and the reinforcement of that is a good thing. However it would seem that the only way to prevent rights from eroding is by banding together with like minded people in in states that protect our rights form the jack booted feds and those that inhabit the alfabet soup agencies.    I'm not as quick to judge Rand Paul as you Kyle. I think Rand is not a "pure" as the beloved Ron, but Rand may actually acomplish more by being a better player of the game... Time will tell...

[huntrights]

Here is a link to bring you up to date on National Right to Carry Reciprocity:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/hot-topics/national-right-to-carry.aspx?s=h.r.+822&st=&ps=

[Bigshooter]

It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. 

I made the tough choice to leave Washington, feeling that it is overrun by socialists. If the RKBA becomes prohibitively strangled at the federal level, there will be nowhere left to run. Be careful what you wish for.

You are right it creates pro 2nd Amendment precedent by the federal.  The federal government has already set anti 2nd Amendment precedent when Clinton signed the assualt weapons ban.  And you could say that Bush created more pro 2nd Amendent precedent when he let the assualt weapons ban expire.  To me it's a waste of time worrying about precedent being set by the federal government.  When one side has a majority they do what they want.

[Atroxus]

It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. 

I made the tough choice to leave Washington, feeling that it is overrun by socialists. If the RKBA becomes prohibitively strangled at the federal level, there will be nowhere left to run. Be careful what you wish for.

You are right it creates pro 2nd Amendment precedent by the federal.  The federal government has already set anti 2nd Amendment precedent when Clinton signed the assualt weapons ban.  And you could say that Bush created more pro 2nd Amendent precedent when he let the assualt weapons ban expire.  To me it's a waste of time worrying about precedent being set by the federal government.  When one side has a majority they do what they want.

  As far as "state's rights" argument goes though, I don't think states should be allowed to restrict our rights any more than the federal government. Our 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about requiring training to be able to keep and bear arms. The states that do have that requirement should not be allowed to affect the rights of people from states that do not.

Personally I think the people who nit-pick every pro-gun measure and dig in their heels because it isn't the end-all, be-all, perfect solution are doing just as much damage to our gun rights as the anti-gunners. Some of us would rather make no progress at all, then accept anything less than a "perfect solution".

As far as I can tell there is nothing in this measure that negatively affects our 2nd amendment rights. Sure some *censored* 10 years down the road might come along and ruin it, but that could be argued for ANY pro-gun measure, or any other measure for that matter. 

[Bean Counter]

I appreciate your comments, guys. It seems you are taking a more pragmatic approach and yes, I am admittedly an idealistic prick at times.

I would encourage you to review the tradition of how laws are enacted and later modified at the federal level. Roll up your sleeves and dig into the weeds a little. Just look at the federal income tax. I used to have a souvineer pamphlet on the wall of my office of the original income tax code. I think it was about ten pages. Today its 44,000. The top marginal income tax rate was 5%. Now its 35% (used to be 70% under Uncle Jimmy). Think about Obamacare. Many wise, heroic conservatives are attempting to repeal it BEFORE it takes full effect in a few years and you have a dependent  class of grabastic, moocher voters who depend on it and will loyally vote Democrat from cradle to grave.

Yes, a Democrat supermajority in both houses could enact sweeping gun bans down the road. But even with minorities in both houses its a lot easier to attach amendments to larger bills that start taking pot shots at CCW if there is an already existing federal CCW law. This would have direct effect on CCW in all of the Dear Leader's 57 states. Again, this would be an immediate improvement for those living in Kalifornia, but for those of us who have manned up and moved the heck out of communist states its overall a loss. I and a lot of people like me paid a high price to uproot from a state of socialistic f-tards like Washington. I don't want to suffer under the filth promulgated by Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray when I have chose to live insulated in a state where I can carry a gun without a permission slip from the government and SHE is still my governor 

[Bean Counter]

Bigshooter: you mention the 1994 AWB. I think it was Senator Diane Frankenstein from CA who said that the end result of the bill would be very little. She said it was in fact a stepping stone to broader regulation.

[Wacenturion]

Personally like the idea.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I would rather have the protection of 2nd Amendment rights handled at the federal level.  It's the governments job to uphold the Constitution.  That way you avoid differing opinions in 50 states and god only knows how many counties, cities and towns, due to local politicians.

Screw Chicago, Seattle, California and the rest of the country that oppose it and the liberties given.  This is what the Constitution says....get with it or we're withholding federal funds.

[KyleMB123]

Personally like the idea.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I would rather have the protection of 2nd Amendment rights handled at the federal level.

The second amendment is already protected at the national level by the fact that it's the second amendment to our Constitution. Any CWP legislation at the national level is an infringement on the second amendment. Any CWP legislation at the state level is also an infringement on the second amendment. The second amendment is only one sentence. It is not at all difficult to understand it's meaning.