National Right to Carry In the Senate

[Bttbbob]

National Right to Carry Bill to the Senate
National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate
Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822, which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

Link Removed

 

[stevenmetzger]

says page not found.

 

[santa]

In this election year it stands a good chance of passage. The last time it was voted on in the US Senate in 2009 it had 58 votes for passage but needed 60 to stop the fillibuster. Since then the 2010 election changed the makeup of the Senate and therefore making it even more likely to pass. The House has already passed it by an almost 2 to 1 margin. Obama MIGHT sign it IF he needs the votes for reelection OR if the Reciprocity bill is atatched to a bill he wants. Remember the National Parks Carry law was signed by Obama, probably because it was part of a banking bill he wanted. It is too bad that some normally pro-gun groups are against this bill and are spreading distortions and falsehoods about it. The NRA very much supports this bill (as I do), but rather than taking their word (or mine) for it READ IT FOR YOURSELF! You will see that it is good for all gun owners and has none of the 'doom and gloom' predicted by the nay-sayers. This is a bill that needs to become law as your rights do NOT end at the state line. Please contact your Senator to urge a YES vote on National Reciprocity.

 

[santa]

To find the link go to the NRA-ILA website.

 

[CharonPDX]

Immediately writing my two Senators. Both are 'personal rights' champions for most rights, but have both been rather mixed on gun issues. If it takes election-year politicking to get them to vote for it, so be it - I'll just lace my letter with lots of references to their stance on personal rights. I was proud that 3 of my state's 4 Representatives didn't just vote for it, but were early co-sponsors.

Let's hope this gets passed quickly!

 

[davej85]

I really hope this passes! Living in such a small state like Connecticut it would be nice to be able travel more than a few miles and still legally protect myself

 

[Raider-3]

I get concerned that it will be to good to be concerned. I'm sure there will be some catch to this.

 

[mrjam2jab]

http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=b8857560-03c5-4165-8cc7-38e2ee26cef0

The bill

 

[Jayman720]

Simon says to email your senators.

 

[Stan45]

Gun Owners of America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Reciprocity Bills: A Strong Bill verses a Compromise


Great news!
Pro-gun Senate champions John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have decided to stand their ground on their concealed carry reciprocity legislation, despite pressure from gun rights compromisers to weaken the bill.
Specifically, Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.
Such states do not require residents to obtain the government’s permission before carrying a firearm for self-protection. There are currently 17 states that have either enacted legislation in the past or have introduced “Constitutional Carry” laws in their legislatures this year.
Current law:
Vermont
Alaska
Arizona
Montana
Wyoming
Considering legislation:
Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
New Hampshire
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota (on governor’s desk)
Virginia
More states are being added to the list all the time. The Thune-Vitter legislation will fully recognize gun owners’ rights in these states.

A competing bill, however, pulls the rug out from under “Constitutional Carry.” Sponsored by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the compromise bill still requires a government permit for reciprocity, regardless of state law.
So while the states are moving in the direction of more freedom, the Begich and Manchin bill would keep even the most pro-gun states tied to a permitting system. Why are they doing this? After all, criminals don’t get in line at the police station to get a permit. It’s the law-abiding gun owners who go through the process of proving their innocence before being “allowed” to carry a firearm.
We have a message for Begich and Manchin: gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.
It is vitally important that your two Senators hear from you right away. Urge them NOT to support the compromise bill, and instead support the pro-gun legislation offered by Senators Thune and Vitter.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Insist that they cosponsor the strong pro-gun Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill, which protects Constitutional Carry, and urge them not to support the Begich-Manchin compromise.
Click here to send your Senators a pre-written message.

 

[santa]

I disagree strongly with GAO. The bill they support stands NO CHANCE OF BECOMMING LAW. The House has already passed HR 822 and to bow to the wishes of GAO would require the entire peocess to start over which will despite wishfull thinking, never happen. That a minority of states are considering so called "Constutitional Carry' is true, but how many of them will pass it? At the risk of offending the GAO, you are you are actually helping the 'Brady Bunch' in their effort to stop National Reciprocity and if you are successfull it will be years IF EVER before we have National Reciprocity. Please rethink your position and think realistically, not wishfully.

 

[nogods]

Gun Owners of America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Reciprocity Bills: A Strong Bill verses a Compromise


Great news!
Pro-gun Senate champions John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have decided to stand their ground on their concealed carry reciprocity legislation, despite pressure from gun rights compromisers to weaken the bill.
Specifically, Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.
Such states do not require residents to obtain the government’s permission before carrying a firearm for self-protection. There are currently 17 states that have either enacted legislation in the past or have introduced “Constitutional Carry” laws in their legislatures this year.
Current law:
Vermont
Alaska
Arizona
Montana
Wyoming
Considering legislation:
Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
New Hampshire
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota (on governor’s desk)
Virginia
More states are being added to the list all the time. The Thune-Vitter legislation will fully recognize gun owners’ rights in these states.

A competing bill, however, pulls the rug out from under “Constitutional Carry.” Sponsored by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the compromise bill still requires a government permit for reciprocity, regardless of state law.
So while the states are moving in the direction of more freedom, the Begich and Manchin bill would keep even the most pro-gun states tied to a permitting system. Why are they doing this? After all, criminals don’t get in line at the police station to get a permit. It’s the law-abiding gun owners who go through the process of proving their innocence before being “allowed” to carry a firearm.
We have a message for Begich and Manchin: gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.
It is vitally important that your two Senators hear from you right away. Urge them NOT to support the compromise bill, and instead support the pro-gun legislation offered by Senators Thune and Vitter.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Insist that they cosponsor the strong pro-gun Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill, which protects Constitutional Carry, and urge them not to support the Begich-Manchin compromise.
Click here to send your Senators a pre-written message.

Why not just enact a federal law prohibiting all states from prohibiting concealed and open carry by people who qualify to possess a firearm under federal law?

Why all this mickey mouse mumbo jumbo about forcing one state to recognize what another state does, to the extent that the first state allows its any of its residents to carry.

 

[Axeanda45]

I have a really hard time believing that ANYONE who is "for" these bullcrap infringements have ANY CLUE AT ALL WHAT our Rights actually are....

 

[santa]

I have a really hard time believing that ANYONE who is "for" these bullcrap infringements have ANY CLUE AT ALL WHAT our Rights actually are....

Try that arguement on a cop that is arresting you for carrying illegally. Go ahead and tell any cop in for example California or any other state that requires a permit that the second amendment is your permit, then show him your gun. It will get you nowhere except in jail. While Constutitional Carry would be ideal, I am just being realistic.

 

[Axeanda45]

Try that arguement on a cop that is arresting you for carrying illegally. Go ahead and tell any cop in for example California or any other state that requires a permit that the second amendment is your permit, then show him your gun. It will get you nowhere except in jail. While Constutitional Carry would be ideal, I am just being realistic.

You seem to have the fantasy in your head that someone like me waves their gun in front of cops faces in highly restrictive gunlaw states... You need help dude...

In my opinion, you seem to project a fear of being free..... I, on the other hand, am free.... I have NO FEAR of dieing for what I believe in... you sound like you are afraid of going outside....


Also, if someone is willing to die fighting for their rights, wouldnt that include fighting for them too? <--- something you obviously never thought about....

I am NOT going to jail (for firearms laws)... NOW between the 2 of us, who is being "realistic"? You cant get much more real than that mr tooth fairy...

 

[nogods]

In my opinion, all YOU project is fear of being free..... I, on the other hand, am free.... I have NO FEAR of dieing for what I believe in... you sound like you are afraid of going outside....

yeah..right.

What you going to do, shoot it out with the LEO?

 

[Axeanda45]

Absolutely, I took an Oath.... and it said against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.... Got a problem with that?

Added disclaimer: I have absolutely no problems getting pulled over for a traffic violation, and will (grudgingly) pay my fine, but do NOT screw with my rights, EVER.....

 

[Bikenut]

Try that arguement on a cop that is arresting you for carrying illegally. Go ahead and tell any cop in for example California or any other state that requires a permit that the second amendment is your permit, then show him your gun. It will get you nowhere except in jail. While Constutitional Carry would be ideal, I am just being realistic.

In my opinion you, and others, are hiding a defeatist attitude behind the excuse of "being realistic". If Constitutional Carry would be ideal why would you be in favor of promoting furthering the infringement of a permit system instead of pushing for the ideal?

Do you really believe that California, or any other State, will stand for allowing anyone to carry that doesn't abide by their strict permit system?

For some reason people are looking at this bill as some kind of Disney Land "E" ticket that requires States to accept any and all permits out there. Does anyone really think that is going to happen?

I suspect what will happen is the Feds will pass the bill, Obama will gleefully sign it knowing it is a gateway to ever increasing Federal power and control over the permit system, and it will become law. Once that happens the States will complain that they must now honor permits issued by other States that have more lax standards than they do. And the Feds will step right up and address that issue by passing a standardized permit system and make the whole permit thing "fair" to all States.

Now... does anyone think that standardized system will NOT be patterned after the most strict State system already in place?

And the gun control folks will be grinning because they know that once there is a standardized system in place the standards can be incrementally made more and more strict over time until.... only the rich elite can afford the training and the fees.

 

[santa]

You seem to have the fantasy in your head that someone like me waves their gun in front of cops faces in highly restrictive gunlaw states... You need help dude...

In my opinion, you seem to project a fear of being free..... I, on the other hand, am free.... I have NO FEAR of dieing for what I believe in... you sound like you are afraid of going outside....


Also, if someone is willing to die fighting for their rights, wouldnt that include fighting for them too? <--- something you obviously never thought about....

I am NOT going to jail (for firearms laws)... NOW between the 2 of us, who is being "realistic"? You cant get much more real than that mr tooth fairy...

With that kind of temper and attitude you could be the poster-child FOR gun control.

 

[santa]

In my opinion you, and others, are hiding a defeatist attitude behind the excuse of "being realistic". If Constitutional Carry would be ideal why would you be in favor of promoting furthering the infringement of a permit system instead of pushing for the ideal?

Do you really believe that California, or any other State, will stand for allowing anyone to carry that doesn't abide by their strict permit system?

For some reason people are looking at this bill as some kind of Disney Land "E" ticket that requires States to accept any and all permits out there. Does anyone really think that is going to happen?

I suspect what will happen is the Feds will pass the bill, Obama will gleefully sign it knowing it is a gateway to ever increasing Federal power and control over the permit system, and it will become law. Once that happens the States will complain that they must now honor permits issued by other States that have more lax standards than they do. And the Feds will step right up and address that issue by passing a standardized permit system and make the whole permit thing "fair" to all States.

Now... does anyone think that standardized system will NOT be patterned after the most strict State system already in place?

And the gun control folks will be grinning because they know that once there is a standardized system in place the standards can be incrementally made more and more strict over time until.... only the rich elite can afford the training and the fees.

How can a law that furthers my right to carry into a state that wont recognize my permit 'further infringement'? You want Constutitional Carry yet how many years or decades IF EVER till it happens? And YES I do believe that California will obey FEDERAL law as required by the CONSTUTITION. You talk about dire things if this bill passes BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN IN THE BILL WHERE THESE TERRIBLE THINGS ARE! You claim that this bill is a gateway to further gun control. Hmmm, seems that in 1968 the Congress passed a gun control bill WITHOUT the proposed law you dislike. Hmmm, mabye Congress doesnt need the National Reciprocity bill to pass gun control bills? Mabye there should not be any new laws at all, because someday they might, mabye, perhaps be amended. One other thing. THE BRADY BUNCH ALSO OPPOSES THE SAME BILL YOU OPPOSE! IF as you say this is a gateway to stricter gun laws, WHY DOES THE BRADY BUNCH TRYING TO DEFEAT IT? You would think if it could or might further gun control they would be for it.