National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Vote Imminent


Red Hat

New member
I know some don't like the idea of a national carry law but It looks like it will get a vote.

Vote on Right to Carry Coming Soon

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Link Removed


Friday, July 17, 2009

A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday!

Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several states.

Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647).

This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV).

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state. This is important because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in other words, without a permit!
 

matthewaynelson

New member
... how are amendments attached? Does the senate simply vote on weather or not to add the amendment?


Unless I'm mistaken, this particular matter is NOT an amendment. It instead is a Senate Bill. Once this Bill was passed by the Senate, it would have to also be passed by the House and ultimately signed into Law by the President.

However, to answer your question about amendments...

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

  • Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
  • Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
  • Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
  • Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. (Source)


I also sent the GOA email to my Florida and Texas Senators! Hope something positive will come of it! :)
 

utimmer43

New member
Matt, thanks for the effort, but read the article again. It states that "Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647)."

As such, I'm not asking how to amendment the Constitution (I already know how that works), but how amendments are added to bills?
 

Comp_sH00tEr24

New member
This sounds better than a national concealed carry permit since it applies to reciprocity. I wonder how it would apply to Illinois and wisconsin
 

FN1910

New member
The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state. This is important because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in other words, without a permit!

Does this mean that a SC resident without a permit can carry in New York City as long as they keep it in their glove box. How about a NC resident in SC, will they be able to OC in SC but SC residents can't.

From what I have read of this bill it is going to cause one big screw up if it passes and lots of court cases.
 

utimmer43

New member
This sounds better than a national concealed carry permit since it applies to reciprocity. I wonder how it would apply to Illinois and wisconsin
As I understand it (not being a lawyer, mind you) it would not apply to IL and WI. The bill (S.845) states "A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried."

If that is the exact wording in the proposed amendment, then it seems it would not allow you to carry in IL and WI.
 

utimmer43

New member
Does this mean that a SC resident without a permit can carry in New York City as long as they keep it in their glove box. How about a NC resident in SC, will they be able to OC in SC but SC residents can't.

From what I have read of this bill it is going to cause one big screw up if it passes and lots of court cases.
Again, not a lawyer, but I think the clause "may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit" would render the bill irrelavent to your two proposed scenarios.
 

matthewaynelson

New member
... Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647)."


My bad! :(

So this "amendment" to the Department of Defense authorization bill is technically referred to as a rider. A rider is an additional provision annexed to a bill under the consideration of a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill. Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision which would not pass as its own bill.

A rider can be introduced by any senator. In this case this rider has been co-sponsored (Thune and Vitter).

Another example of a rider is the Link Removed that Democrats have linked to the Defense Bill.

The rider can be modified before the legislation passes from the Senate. And, if the rider is controversial enough it can ultimately kill a piece of legislation. In other instances, the President can use a line item veto to kill a rider.

Hopefully this rider will pass through the Senate without modification and ultimately be signed into law! :)
 

FN1910

New member
As I understand it (not being a lawyer, mind you) it would not apply to IL and WI. The bill (S.845) states "A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried."

If that is the exact wording in the proposed amendment, then it seems it would not allow you to carry in IL and WI.

That is one of my objections to this bill as it does not apply to all states. I hate Federal legislation that only applies to certain states in any form. But I also hate the feds sticking their noses in state business. Be very careful what you wish for as you just may get it and this is another example of the feds giving something that they can also take away easily. Some people are gong to be very happy for a while if this passes but I see many problems with it in the future.
 

johnsteele

New member
My bad! :(

So this "amendment" to the Department of Defense authorization bill is technically referred to as a rider. A rider is an additional provision annexed to a bill under the consideration of a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill. Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision which would not pass as its own bill.

A rider can be introduced by any senator. In this case this rider has been co-sponsored (Thune and Vitter).

Another example of a rider is the Link Removed that Democrats have linked to the Defense Bill.

The rider can be modified before the legislation passes from the Senate. And, if the rider is controversial enough it can ultimately kill a piece of legislation. In other instances, the President can use a line item veto to kill a rider.

Hopefully this rider will pass through the Senate without modification and ultimately be signed into law! :)

President doesn't have a line item veto, its all or nothing.

Frankly I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I'd like to see it pass for purely selfish reasons. On the other hand I'm tired of having Washington tell the states what they have to do. If the people of Illinois don't want to allow carry that's their business, not mine. If the people of a state change their minds then they should vote on the matter.

I don't like Roe v Wade for the same reason. If the people of Kansas want to ban abortion and the people of New York want to allow it they each ought to have the right to do so. If a Kansas woman needs or wants an abortion then she can go to a state where its allowed, to quote from Red October "state to state, no papers"

I'm sick and tired of the Feds telling the states and the people what we can and can't do.
 

utimmer43

New member
President doesn't have a line item veto, its all or nothing.

Frankly I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I'd like to see it pass for purely selfish reasons. On the other hand I'm tired of having Washington tell the states what they have to do. If the people of Illinois don't want to allow carry that's their business, not mine. If the people of a state change their minds then they should vote on the matter.

I don't like Roe v Wade for the same reason. If the people of Kansas want to ban abortion and the people of New York want to allow it they each ought to have the right to do so. If a Kansas woman needs or wants an abortion then she can go to a state where its allowed, to quote from Red October "state to state, no papers"

I'm sick and tired of the Feds telling the states and the people what we can and can't do.
The problem with your comparison of Roe v. Wade to this CCW bill is that one is a clearly defined Constitutional Right and the other is not. As FN stated, I would prefer that it did not exclude IL and WI. But then I believe the whole idea of "allowing" us to purchase the "privilege" to carry a concealed firearm is non-sense in it self. I don't believe that any State has any right to tell us that we may or may not do so. But I guess that is another argument for another day. What I do think this bill will do is show that allowing CC reduces crime. I believe that the crime rate will drop in the 48 states that it applies to, and quite possibly increase in the 2 that it doesn't apply to. Maybe that will finally convince those 2 States to get with the program.
Some people are gong to be very happy for a while if this passes but I see many problems with it in the future.
As for future problems and confusion, I think it will be cases where a person carries into a location that he does not realize is prohibited in the state he is in, as the locations vary greatly by state. The other very specific instance I can see causing a problem is NYC. Without doing the research, I think it is NY State law that a normal NY CCW isn't valid in NYC. One must specifically obtain a NYC permit to carry there. Again, without researching and reading the law word for word, I would think that that would allow non-residents to carry anywhere in NY State except in NYC, presumably all 5 boros.
even with a FL CCP, being in jersey I'm screwed:angry:
How so? The bill does not specify that the permit must be a resident permit. It would seem that your FL CCP would allow you to carry in NJ.
 

Red Hat

New member
Frankly I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I'd like to see it pass for purely selfish reasons. On the other hand I'm tired of having Washington tell the states what they have to do.

I feel the same way. I'd like all states to recognize my CWP but on their own. We'll never see that though. The Gov has their hands in too much of my business and I trust them about as far as I can throw Hussein! However, in this case I'll still be happy if it passes.

The way I read it is if they allow a citizen to have a permit even though it's almost impossible to get one like CA. You will be able to carry in that State.
may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry
If a State allows one person to carry with a permit the should fall under that rule. I can see a few court cases on the horizon if it's made law.
 

HootmonSccy

New member
Call me paranoid, call me a bigot ( I do not believe I am either - IMHO)

By the words "This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV)." Can this later be used by gays to force other states to recognize their marriages???

People can be gay if they want to be, I just don't think it is a protected right... each state's LEGISLATURE, not some single Judge should decide how its state should handle this issue, not the federal gov't. The founders were very careful to limit the federal government power and to let the states have most of the power over it's peoples... That is the way is should be kept, and to set any precedence otherwise, scares me!!!
 

c45man

New member
The congress and the white house are controlled by a polictial party that has taken contributions from every anti-gun organization from coast to coast. I believe the anti-gun organizations, who already feel slighted over the inability of the congress to have already passed a dozen or so gun restriction laws, will a least convince the congress to withdraw any portions of legislation that deal with reciprocity before it gets to the vote. Or the antis can attach a number of gun restriction riders onto the piece of legislation that can derail the entire matter.
 

Red Hat

New member
It looks like it will come up for a vote in the Senate Monday or Tuesday. Link Removed

Friday, July 17, 2009

Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And
Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.

While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.

Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge these changes in state laws and recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

And, carry permit holders have demonstrated that they are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida has issued more carry permits than any other state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) as a result of firearms-related crimes by permit holders.

The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and—most important of all—will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves when deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.
 

Invisible_Dave

New member
Is there any way for this to hurt those of us with Non-residence permits? I'm afraid states that honor or even issue non-resident permit will stop because new federal law. Some of us are in states that currently can get resident permits.
 

utimmer43

New member
Is there any way for this to hurt those of us with Non-residence permits? I'm afraid states that honor or even issue non-resident permit will stop because new federal law. Some of us are in states that currently can get resident permits.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. NR permits bring outside money into the state, so I would think they would want to issue as many as possible. It might make expensive places like FL drop their price to compete with cheap states. Maybe not, who knows? Of course, I'm not even really holding my breath that it will be added.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,343
Messages
622,604
Members
74,169
Latest member
gamike
Top