National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

[BluesStringer]

Defeatist attitude.

And inexplicable to boot. There is now a constitutional alternative that just hit the Senate Floor today. S.2188 has exactly three sponsors, all Democrat, all with abysmal voting records, and all completely undeserving of our trust as 2A rights activists.

The alternative, the Thune/Vitter Bill, S. 2213, was introduced with 29 sponsors/cosponsors, all reliably pro-2A Senators.

We have a choice; give into the typical business-as-usual way of bargaining away our God-given rights for the temporary and illusory privileges that can be taken away as easily as they were granted by an overreaching .fedgov that has no constitutional authority to do either, OR we can fight like Patriots for what we already own as our birthright: The full measure of our God-given rights. It's no difficult choice for me. If it is for you, you really should find the full text of the speech of Samuel Adams' from which this ending passage is excerpted, for he was talking to your counterparts of his day:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

This is the GOA alert I just received telling of the Thune/Vitter Bill becoming a reality. There are workable and viable alternatives to shredding the meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause. I can't imagine any other reason than selfish instant gratification and an unwillingness to work for what one believes in to oppose this alternative. Unfortunately, I feel like this *gun forum* is the one place I know of where I can count on someone coming up with a rationale though. So who's first? Whomever it is, you can't say it *can't* be done, only that you *won't* bother trying. Anyway....

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) and Wicker (MS).
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. Link Removed

Interesting that both Senators from SC are for this bill, even Lindsey Ghramnesty fer cryin' out loud, but the person who brought up and lives in SC is "practical" and "reasonable" enough to support the one from Harry Reid's myrmidons. That's gotta be a kick in the crotch to wake up one day and realize you're even less of a constitutionalist than Lindsey-friggin'-Ghramnesty!

Blues

 

[jrs]

I have to agree that 2213 is a better alternative and hope it passes. But again, I'm a realist.
While I don't know if all co-sponsors are Republican, I would assume most are....so do you really think Harry Reid is going to let a Republican sponsored bill on this issue see the light of day for a vote on the floor?
If it does, it better be veto-proof.

 

[S&W645]

....

Another poster referred to this solving only my "selfish" interests for my own convenience. I would ask...How many millions of dollars are spent in this country in Non-Resident permit fees, as well as the individual state required training courses, required to legally carry your weapon across state lines.
Yes, it would be more convenient to me to be able to travel to Florida without having to spend money on a non-resident permit...pack my guns and ammo in seperate locked containers when approaching states which do not recognize my home state resident permit or other non-resident permits...then unpack them and carry when I leave that state....only to do it again a few states away.
It would also be more convenient NOT to spend the extra cash on non-resident permits......

You do understand that the problem isn't really with the states south of NY, but with NY itself. Florida would accept the NY permit if NY and NYC would accept Florida's. So if good New Yorkers like yourself would get your state to change its rules, you wouldn't need non-resident permits/licenses. The new bill in the Senate aims to correct your lawmakers thinking. If NY and NYC continue to not accept other state's permits, then you all will lose yours too. Because the only legal way then is to ban all NY/NYC carry permits.

 

[Bikenut]

Quite frankly... until I see the wording of the Thune-Vitter bill and ruminate on the possible unintended consequences thereof... I will with hold any comment.

 

[BluesStringer]

I have to agree that 2213 is a better alternative and hope it passes. But again, I'm a realist.
While I don't know if all co-sponsors are Republican, I would assume most are....so do you really think Harry Reid is going to let a Republican sponsored bill on this issue see the light of day for a vote on the floor?
If it does, it better be veto-proof.

Being a "realist" and all, which of the following scenarios is more likely to come to fruition:

1) HR 822/S 2188 passes with the blessings of Harry Reid, supported and promoted only by Democrats, all of whom have verifiably horrendous voting records on 2A issues. Since the Commerce Clause is the foundation upon which 2188 is built, every aspect of carrying a firearm sees a friggin' tsunami of new regulation, all coming from the .fedgov and all intended to make carrying firearms such a hassle and so expensive that no more legislation is needed that directly infringes on the 2A in order to achieve the Democrat wet dream of quashing gun rights in America. From holsters to gun safes to trigger locks to ammo to even the raw materials it takes to make these items, the Commerce Clause is invoked with the full blessing of IDIOT gun owners following the lead like SHEEP of the biggest gun control organization in the world, the N-Friggin'-RA, and "regulatory fees" and "licensing fees" of those items and materials are crammed into the price to the end users' cost of carrying a weapon, inflating that already-expensive cost to be out of reach for the average John Q. Public citizen.

Or -

2) Thune/Vitter passes with no invocation of the Commerce Clause. Your permit is seen in the eyes of the law just like your Driver's License or Marriage License is seen, with the full faith and credit mandated by the 14th Amendment between states. Nothing changes from a federal perspective except that they have used the Constitution in its legitimate role (at least since passage of the 14th anyway) of enforcing the rights of citizens against federal and state infringements.

Now, both of those scenarios assume passage of each of the bills. It's quite possible that neither will pass. If you really care about your rights, you better fight hard against 822/2188, and fight for 2213. If all you care about is reciprocity that NY/NYC is denying you now, then my original charge of blatant selfishness stands unrefuted, and the path of least resistance for you may well be 822/2188. If 2213 is defeated, too bad, so sad, but at least we fought on the right side, the side of the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it, 822/2188 will create a Leviathan with a grip on gun issues as monstrous as the EPA has a grip on energy, farming, land management, manufacturing and infrastructure construction. A regulatory quasi-legal government agency will emerge that will make law by fiat, just like the EPA, and it will all happen at the invitation of gun owners who couldn't be bothered to investigate the probable ramifications and unintended consequences of supporting the usage of the Commerce Clause to "support" their right to keep and bear arms.

If you really are a "realist," then you better run like your hair's on fire from 822/2188, lest you realistically contribute to the death of the 2nd Amendment, which means the death of the Constitution, which means the death of America. REALLY!!

Quite frankly... until I see the wording of the Thune-Vitter bill and ruminate on the possible unintended consequences thereof... I will with hold any comment.

I'm with you on wanting to read the bill Bikenut. I did a search and haven't been able to find the text of it yet. I think it usually takes 5 days or so for it to be published after submission. Going only on what GOA has to say about it though, I'm cautiously optimistic that it's like I describe above, more akin to a 14th A. full-faith-and-credit approach than unwarranted federal intrusion into states' rights. If that turns out to be true, would you have a problem with it? If so, can you articulate what that, or those, problems would be?

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

I'm with you on wanting to read the bill Bikenut. I did a search and haven't been able to find the text of it yet. I think it usually takes 5 days or so for it to be published after submission. Going only on what GOA has to say about it though, I'm cautiously optimistic that it's like I describe above, more akin to a 14th A. full-faith-and-credit approach than unwarranted federal intrusion into states' rights. If that turns out to be true, would you have a problem with it? If so, can you articulate what that, or those, problems would be?

Blues

Again.. I will withhold any comment until actually reading the bill and had time to think about it because...

I have seen in the past where bills that were so horrendous it disgusted even the most die hards who would support the basic premise... got switched for a bill that is less horrendous... but still contains the same basic premise.... so folks will go for the lesser of the two evils.

So is the Thune/Vitter bill just a better disguised Trojan Horse offered so folks will be fooled? I don't know... haven't read the bill... nor had the chance to consider what is also between the lines.

 

[BC1]

Even if this bill is passed, people will be required to follow the law in every state.

 

[nogods]

Even if this bill is passed, people will be required to follow the law in every state.

What if NYS adopts a rule that only lifetime permit holders can carry concealed?

Would that mean that all the permit holders in those communist run states where they have to renew every 3 or 4 years would be excluded from the benefits of the National Reciprocity Law?

And going the other way, I can go into a church or tavern with my firearm in New York State but I won't be able to do so in all the other states even if the law passes.

 

[Nightmare45]

I still have the option of not spending my money in any state, no carry no money.

 

[Steve357]

We will always have this issue till the day we die or even in our next life, wherever that'll be. It's a never ending battle. It sucks, but no matter what we do or try some f**k ass group will try anything to take our rights to bear arms away our freedom as well. So many stupid **** heads out there, it's freaking ridiculous.

 

[BC1]

What if NYS adopts a rule that only lifetime permit holders can carry concealed?

Would that mean that all the permit holders in those communist run states where they have to renew every 3 or 4 years would be excluded from the benefits of the National Reciprocity Law?

And going the other way, I can go into a church or tavern with my firearm in New York State but I won't be able to do so in all the other states even if the law passes.

I've been wondering how NYS would handle this. Considering they restrict some permits, must they grant unrestricted carry above what residents are allowed? Do you think states would argue the legislation violates states rights.

 

[nogods]

I've been wondering how NYS would handle this. Considering they restrict some permits, must they grant unrestricted carry above what residents are allowed? Do you think states would argue the legislation violates states rights.

I don't think the political environment is going to allow a sate wide ban.

NYC will just enact a collection of place and circumstances restrictions derived from other states - no carry within 1000 feet of a church, or bar, or school, or facility rendering medical services.. that would pretty much eliminate concealed carry in NYC.

 

[BluesStringer]

I just found it and haven't finished reading it yet, but here's the full text of S. 2213 on the Thomas Law site:

Link Removed

We may want to start a new thread about 2213.

 

[nogods]

I just found it and haven't finished reading it yet, but here's the full text of S. 2213 on the Thomas Law site:

Link Removed

We may want to start a new thread about 2213.

I think there is a big flaw in the bill as written. It appears that the bill is not designed to eliminate restrictions on the type of weapons that may be carried. It only eliminates restrictions on who may carry.

NYS requires that every firearm be registered on your pistol permit. That does not relate to my "eligibility to possess or carry" but rather to the eligibility of the weapon that can be carried, like the state restrictions on carrying a handgun whose serial number has been obliterated or carrying a handgun with a specified magazine capacity. Those restrictions go to the eligibility of the weapon rather than the eligibility of the permit holder.

A visitor from a state that does not require his handgun to be listed on his permit is going to be charged with possession of a weapon that is ineligible to be carried.

 

[Wyldekard]

I just found it and haven't finished reading it yet, but here's the full text of S. 2213 on the Thomas Law site:

Link Removed

We may want to start a new thread about 2213.

Good idea BluesStringer. I've started a new thread with the full text of S.2213.

 

[BluesStringer]

I think there is a big flaw in the bill as written. It appears that the bill is not designed to eliminate restrictions on the type of weapons that may be carried. It only eliminates restrictions on who may carry.

NYS requires that every firearm be registered on your pistol permit. That does not relate to my "eligibility to possess or carry" but rather to the eligibility of the weapon that can be carried, like the state restrictions on carrying a handgun whose serial number has been obliterated or carrying a handgun with a specified magazine capacity. Those restrictions go to the eligibility of the weapon rather than the eligibility of the permit holder.

A visitor from a state that does not require his handgun to be listed on his permit is going to be charged with possession of a weapon that is ineligible to be carried.

That sounds like a valid concern to me. Perhaps you could find a NYS legislator to offer an amendment covering that concern?

 

[nogods]

That sounds like a valid concern to me. Perhaps you could find a NYS legislator to offer an amendment covering that concern?

Well, the sponsors could add some legislative findings and purpose language that might clarify those issues. Or even better, list specific examples (as in "including, but not limited to") of things that can't be used to interfere with conceal carry by non-residents.

The problem is that people like Bloomberg will try to exploit every potential uncertainty to charge people with a felony possession leaving them with the hard choice of taking a plea, taking a big chance on trial, and in either event paying a New York City attorney a hefty fee.

 

[BluesStringer]

Well, the sponsors could add some legislative findings and purpose language that might clarify those issues. Or even better, list specific examples (as in "including, but not limited to") of things that can't be used to interfere with conceal carry by non-residents.

The problem is that people like Bloomberg will try to exploit every potential uncertainty to charge people with a felony possession leaving them with the hard choice of taking a plea, taking a big chance on trial, and in either event paying a New York City attorney a hefty fee.

Yeah, I understood the implications of your concerns. One of my Senators is an original sponsor (Sessions). He doesn't know me per se, but I write him so often that I wouldn't be surprised if he knew my name. One good thing about Sessions is that every time I write him, he always replies with a pretty clear explanation of his position. I'd guesstimate that it's about a 50/50 ratio between a boiler-plate response and either him or one of his staff actually writing a specific response to my notes. I will drop him a line on this and see what he has to say about it.

Blues

 

[Stan45]

Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213
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.

We should get behind this bill.