Full Text S2213 Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012

[Wyldekard]

S 2213 IS

112th CONGRESS
2d SessionS. 2213
To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
[h=3]March 20, 2012[/h]
Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. WICKER, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. GRAHAM, Ms. AYOTTE, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL
To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[h=3]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.[/h]

• This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012'.

[h=3]SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.[/h]

• (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

[h=4]`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms[/h]

• `(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--

• • `(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

• • • `(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

• • • `(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

• • `(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

• • • `(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

• • • `(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

• `(b) Conditions and Limitations- The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

• `(c) Unrestricted License or Permit- In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

• `(d) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.

• (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

• • `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

• (c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

• (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

END

Link Removed:

I completely support this version without reservartion!

[h=3][/h]

 

[Nightmare45]

Why do I need a photo id, just heard argument we should not need one to VOTE. Just saying and waiting.

 

[NCIC105]

I know some feel this may give the feds the ability to place additional controls on our rights. I feel we need this...We need to stop worrying about crossing state lines...In a perfect world our Constitutional Rights would be all we need but the politicians keep chipping away at these, and the sheep (American Citizens) have allowed them to limit our rights and freedoms....If I had it my way you could carry anywhere, anytime, open or concealed and not be required to have a permit or government required training...


I know a lot of folks will jump on the "no training "thing but if you put this limitation on a person's rights, you are doing the same thing our government has been doing for years.

 

[BluesStringer]

I know some feel this may give the feds the ability to place additional controls on our rights. I feel we need this...We need to stop worrying about crossing state lines...In a perfect world our Constitutional Rights would be all we need but the politicians keep chipping away at these, and the sheep (American Citizens) have allowed them to limit our rights and freedoms....If I had it my way you could carry anywhere, anytime, open or concealed and not be required to have a permit or government required training...


I know a lot of folks will jump on the "no training "thing but if you put this limitation on a person's rights, you are doing the same thing our government has been doing for years.

105, not sure if you understood this or not, but the bill that Wyldekard posted is an alternative to the one that's been discussed in recent weeks. This one is the Thune/Vitter Senate Bill 2213. It was just submitted yesterday, and published today. The whole point of this bill is to resolve the concerns of those of us who had major problems with the previous bill, HR 822/S. 2188, because of its lack of support for states with constitutional carry. This bill specifically mentions constitutional carry as being included in the reciprocity mandate. There will be those who oppose this on states' rights grounds, but it is my firm belief that the 14th Amendment's full faith and credit clause, as well as the 10th Amendment reserving all things included in the federal Constitution to the .fedgov, makes this a legitimate federal issue.

Just wanted to clarify that this is a newly-minted bill that does resolve the problems that at least I had with the previous bill. Beyond the states' rights non-issue (IMO), I'll be interested to see what concerns supporters of the 822/2188 come up with. The only thing I can think of is that the NRA supports the first bill, GOA supports this one, and there are so many around here who can't allow themselves to find fault with an NRA-backed position. It's the weirdest phenomenon I've witnessed on any gun forum I've ever participated at, which is basically all of the busiest ones. Anyway, there ya go, clarification delivered.

Blues

 

[NCIC105]

105, not sure if you understood this or not, but the bill that Wyldekard posted is an alternative to the one that's been discussed in recent weeks. This one is the Thune/Vitter Senate Bill 2213. It was just submitted yesterday, and published today. The whole point of this bill is to resolve the concerns of those of us who had major problems with the previous bill, HR 822/S. 2188, because of its lack of support for states with constitutional carry. This bill specifically mentions constitutional carry as being included in the reciprocity mandate. There will be those who oppose this on states' rights grounds, but it is my firm belief that the 14th Amendment's full faith and credit clause, as well as the 10th Amendment reserving all things included in the federal Constitution to the .fedgov, makes this a legitimate federal issue.

Just wanted to clarify that this is a newly-minted bill that does resolve the problems that at least I had with the previous bill. Beyond the states' rights non-issue (IMO), I'll be interested to see what concerns supporters of the 822/2188 come up with. The only thing I can think of is that the NRA supports the first bill, GOA supports this one, and there are so many around here who can't allow themselves to find fault with an NRA-backed position. It's the weirdest phenomenon I've witnessed on any gun forum I've ever participated at, which is basically all of the busiest ones. Anyway, there ya go, clarification delivered.

Blues

Good point..I did miss this!

I concur with your post.

 

[santa]

105, There will be those who oppose this on states' rights grounds, but it is my firm belief that the 14th Amendment's full faith and credit clause, as well as the 10th Amendment reserving all things included in the federal Constitution to the .fedgov, makes this a legitimate federal issue.


Blues

The 10th amendment to our FEDERAL Constitution says nothing like your words "the 10th amendment reserving all things included in the federal Constutition to the .fedgov". The 10th amendment reserves the rights not delegated to the Federal government, to the states or to the people, not the .fedgov. It reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[MilShooter]

Need for Universal Training?

<snipped>If I had it my way you could carry anywhere, anytime, open or concealed and not be required to have a permit or government required training...

I know a lot of folks will jump on the "no training "thing but if you put this limitation on a person's rights, you are doing the same thing our government has been doing for years.

What are your views on issuing driver's licenses to 16 year old kids who have no training in the operation of an automobile? Or how about no training required for pilots? How about fielding an Army with no training? Sure, I am exaggerating, but I want to make a point that in SOME endeavors, training is a GOOD thing.

As you might conclude, I disagree with your opinion because I believe that, in order to safely carry and operate a firearm, the person should have some form of instruction. In order to get my first hunting license, I had to take a hunter's safety course and I felt GREAT when I sat there, amongst other prospective sportsmen, entering into the world of sportsmen. I was incredibly proud of myself when I earned the certificate. My father, a former member of the US Army Pistol Team (at the time), taught me in the operation and maintenance of shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. Again, I was incredibly proud that he had such trust in me and my judgment to allow me to carry my own shotgun or rifle on hunts with him - or with my friends, without his supervision.

To give a loaded pistol to a person unfamiliar with its operation and ignorant of firearms laws is a recipe for disaster. Just look how the "gang bangers" operate their weapons - just look at the idiot Afghans who don't know how to fire their weapons with accuracy. Without some form of training, we would have a bunch of loose cannons walking the street, armed with incredibly powerful weapons and no clue as to how or WHEN to put them into service.

No - I think training is necessary.

But I agree with your sentiment: Government is way too involved in regulating and restricting our lives. I may or may not be here (alive) to see it, but I dread the days when there is again armed conflict on our soil, between our own citizens and perhaps between our citizens and military. I can see it coming and hope I don't have to witness it and participate in it. My shame is that I cannot convince my liberal ("everyone is nice and everyone is equal") children that they need to prepare for that day. They're not sheep - they're ostriches.

So as not to be accused of hijacking the OP's post, I completely agree that we need such legislation as universal reciprocity. I also believe that we need universal right-to-carry, but I don't see THAT coming too soon. If Mr. Obama is reelected, we might see universal confiscation. And that is when the war begins. For the life of me, I can't understand why seemingly intelligent people in Congress can't execute the will of the people in this legislation. I abhor politics and its adherents. And I especially abhor people who want to make rules to control other people's behaviors just "because". We have an old saying in my house, "Just because you have the authority to make a rule doesn't mean you SHOULD make a rule..."

And so it goes.

 

[CharonPDX]

To me, I like this version, but I think it's ridiculously dishonest to call this "Respecting states rights". This is respecting states rights even LESS than the other one.

I fully agree - this should be a right guaranteed at the federal level from state interference. Just as it should be a full faith issue that a license or contract in one state should be recognized as valid in every other state, full stop.

But it's still disingenuous to call this bill "respecting states rights", when the precedent has already been set that a state has the right to restrict gun rights. Either gun rights are a states rights issue, or they're not. If they are, then this infringes. If they're not, then "states rights" doesn't matter.

(And this isn't even getting in to the whole "states don't have rights, people have rights" semantic debate.)

 

[BluesStringer]

To me, I like this version, but I think it's ridiculously dishonest to call this "Respecting states rights". This is respecting states rights even LESS than the other one.

I fully agree - this should be a right guaranteed at the federal level from state interference. Just as it should be a full faith issue that a license or contract in one state should be recognized as valid in every other state, full stop.

But it's still disingenuous to call this bill "respecting states rights", when the precedent has already been set that a state has the right to restrict gun rights. Either gun rights are a states rights issue, or they're not. If they are, then this infringes. If they're not, then "states rights" doesn't matter.

(And this isn't even getting in to the whole "states don't have rights, people have rights" semantic debate.)

The name, I think, refers to the provisions in the previous reciprocity bill that would force constitutional carry states to actually make and pass a permit system law where none exists right now. There is no way that this law is more intrusive from a federal level on the states absent those provisions.

On the other hand, as long as people support the crux of this bill, I am not particularly concerned that they have a problem with the name of it.

The 10th amendment to our FEDERAL Constitution says nothing like your words "the 10th amendment reserving all things included in the federal Constutition to the .fedgov". The 10th amendment reserves the rights not delegated to the Federal government, to the states or to the people, not the .fedgov. It reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How do you even dress yourself in the morning? Look at what you wrote there. If powers that are not delegated to the US (.fedgov) are reserved to the states or The People, where does that leave the powers that are delegated to the .fedgov? All things included in the federal Constitution are left to the .fedgov, just exactly like I said. In case you don't understand that, the 2nd Amendment to the federal Constitution makes gun issues a legitimate federal concern.

You're like a freakin' Chihuahua following me around nipping at my heels. Don't you have anything better to do than following me around continually proving everything you've already made me think about you?

Blues

 

[Wyldekard]

I just want to clarify my "reservartion" :redface: comment. I had to leave my computer just as I got started so this thread was a rush job.

I completely support this version as the lesser of all "evils" proffered thus far. What I advocate is the abolition of the permit/license systems currently in place in our country and the nation wide return of the right contained in the Constitution that these systems subverted.