Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 S.2213
- Thread starter gonefishn
- Start date
LkWd_Don
Banned
For whatever reason, the link you provided did not work.
Maybe this will work better.
Link Removed
Ok, so the Status is that it has been introduced in the Senate and sent to the subcommittee on the Judiciary. Unless someone in the subcommittee on the Judiciary is gung-ho for this bill to pass.. it may simply die there.
Maybe this will work better.
Link Removed
Ok, so the Status is that it has been introduced in the Senate and sent to the subcommittee on the Judiciary. Unless someone in the subcommittee on the Judiciary is gung-ho for this bill to pass.. it may simply die there.
LkWd_Don
Banned
Anyone wishing to apply pressure to a Senate Judicary Committee member who happens to be a Senator of their State, here is the list:
Chairman, Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont - Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, R-Iowa
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin - Dianne Feinstein, D-California
Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah - Chuck Schumer, D-New York
Jon Kyl, R-Arizona - **** Durbin, D-Illinois
Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama - Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island
Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina - Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota
John Cornyn, R-Texas - Al Franken, D-Minnesota
Michael S. Lee, R-Utah - Christopher A. Coons, D-Delaware
Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma - Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut
Bigcarlover
New member
So if I understand this correctly it appears that they are trying to control if 882 passess, that we follow the States rules for carry regardless of how unconstitutional or ridiculous they are (think Illinois, California restrictions for magazine rounds, one in the chamber, etc.)
What I read is that if you have a permit from your State of residence it is good in any other State that issues permits. A non-resident permit is not valid in your State of residence. So, for example, you can't get a permit from Utah then go back to CA and thumb your nose at your politicians. This bill protects out of State visitors from local politicians. The only protection you have from your politicians is to vote them out of office.
LkWd_Don
Banned
No, You need to look at what it is saying before the section that you highlighted. What it is saying is that if your State allows its residents to apply for and obtain a Concealed Carry Permit (CCP), then Your State has to also accept the VALID CCP's issued by other States. Just as if you hold a CCP issued by your state, you will be able to carry into any other state that also issues CCP's to their residents.
The verbiage gets a bit confusing with how they throw the NOT's and IS's into it.
But please follow along.. 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--
mrjam2jab
New member
Permits are covered in paragraph (1) that I didn't paste. Paragraph (2) covers those folks from state that don't require permits. But BOTH paragraphs say "in a state other than the State of residence of the individual"...
LkWd_Don
Banned
Well, the House passed their version of the bill H.R. 822 last year and the Senate (Democrat Controlled) just introduced the most recent bill S.2188 and quickly sent it off to the Subcommittee on the Judiciary which is again Controlled by the Democrats.
So ask yourself this: Do the Democrats want you to have any rights? If you come to the conclusion that most will, that answer would be NO!
So based upon that, do you think this bill will pass or will it simply die in the subcommittee on the Judiciary?
LkWd_Don
Banned
And you are not reading the "Not"! Let me try to break it down. Please try to get through all the legalese by ignoring what is simply filler that confuses the issues. I will highlight the pertinant stuff.
This is from Paragraph (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
So, if you are NOT restricted from carrying in your own state and you possess a government issued identification document that entitles you to carry in your home state, then you can carry in any other state that permits their own citizens to carry.
Now I wish to take issue with your misleading Quote in your Postings. I do understand that you take the position that States only have power granted by the People and for all intents and purposes you would be correct. However, each of our States is supposed to be Sovereignty within themselves, that then under Article 4 Section 4 of our Federal Constitution are a part of the Representative (Republican) form of Government guaranteed to every State in this Union.
Now, please refer to the link I am providing to our US Constitution, and read Article 4 States: I would then refer you to the Bill of Rights and specifically look at the 10th Amendment which originally was the last of the bill of RIGHTS. What are those again? Rights? So that basically says that Yes, the States have Rights. U.S. Constitution - Table of Contents - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Last edited:
States have rights?
believe this for a very simple, but important reason: States don’t have rights. People do.
Most states’ rights supporters invoke the 10th Amendment to legitimate and concretize their beliefs. However, the 10th Amendment has very specific wording:
“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.”
The 10th Amendment nowhere provides for any rights of the states. Rather, it delegates powers, the ability to do things, to the states. And there are two conditions on the delegation of any powers to the state: that they are not articulated in the Constitution to the federal government and that they are not reserved by the people themselves. What’s more, the 10th Amendment comes after the 9th Amendment, which also has very specific, and noticeably distinct wording:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So not only are the powers of the states qualified by the authority of the people, but the Constitution explicitly says that the rights of the people shall not be denied, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. With the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment (that all rights protected by the federal Constitution may not be infringed upon by the states), this means there is a Constitutional guarantee that individual rights will not be denied by any government, state or federal, within the United States.
States do not have a carte blanche right to enact any law they want, even if done democratically. Their decisions are not irrevocable or immune from oversight. The use of state power is limited by the rights of the individuals within the state. If states violate the rights of those individuals, then there is just cause for intervention whether by the people or the federal government
believe this for a very simple, but important reason: States don’t have rights. People do.
Most states’ rights supporters invoke the 10th Amendment to legitimate and concretize their beliefs. However, the 10th Amendment has very specific wording:
“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.”
The 10th Amendment nowhere provides for any rights of the states. Rather, it delegates powers, the ability to do things, to the states. And there are two conditions on the delegation of any powers to the state: that they are not articulated in the Constitution to the federal government and that they are not reserved by the people themselves. What’s more, the 10th Amendment comes after the 9th Amendment, which also has very specific, and noticeably distinct wording:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So not only are the powers of the states qualified by the authority of the people, but the Constitution explicitly says that the rights of the people shall not be denied, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. With the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment (that all rights protected by the federal Constitution may not be infringed upon by the states), this means there is a Constitutional guarantee that individual rights will not be denied by any government, state or federal, within the United States.
States do not have a carte blanche right to enact any law they want, even if done democratically. Their decisions are not irrevocable or immune from oversight. The use of state power is limited by the rights of the individuals within the state. If states violate the rights of those individuals, then there is just cause for intervention whether by the people or the federal government
LkWd_Don
Banned
So then by what you are saying, The Bill of Rights does not exist?
I'm sorry, you can call me a states rights supporter all you want.. that does not make it true.. Now if you wanted to call me a supporter of our US Constitution I would have to agree with you. Though I am sure you already know that our US Constitution is made up of considerably more than just the 2nd and 10th Amendments which at least one of those is referenced frequently here in this site and on these forums.
You are very correct that our Government derives its powers and authorities from WE the People, but then I said that already.
But what you are forgetting is that as each state is supposed to be sovereign entity in and of itself, that has then applied to the US Congress for acceptance into the Union of the United States of America, the United States then had to proclaim that those States would retain their rights and the rights of their Citizens. Such was the reason for the addition of our Bill of Rights. The original Bill of Rights presented to the first 13 Sovereign States for ratification included 12 Amendments, the original 2nd and 3rd amendments of which were not initially ratified and as far as I know only one of those two that were not originally ratified, has since been ratified and that was the last to be ratified in 1992 which was proposed in 1789 Notes on the Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
To me the 10th Amendment is one that most Americans take for granted and totally misunderstand. It is not just about State's Rights but about the rights of the People. Please notice the last phrase "or to the people". Here it is not talking about rights of the people in the states but the rights of all Americans and is the basis for our entire legal system. I understand that in Canada that their Constitution is the opposite but I have never investigated closely to determine so I am only going on hearsay about that.
What 10A says is that unless something is illegal then it is legal. Our laws can tell us what is illegal but they cannot tell us what is legal. For instance there can be a law against carrying a gun but there cannot be a law that says you can carry a gun. This is where these reciprocity bills start to bother me as they are as if they are telling that it is lawful to carry a gun which is a violation of 10A whether it is a State's Right or a People's Right. One of the reasons that H.R.822 passed was that it is based strictly on the Commerce Clause where H.R.2900 was not and stood little chance of surviving a court challenge.
As for any of the bills being quickly sent to a committee, that is standard for almost any bill. The committee leader can decide to move on it or not so it is up the the people to put some kind of pressure to get one of these bills moving. Now we not only have the original H.R.822 in committee but two additional bills to confuse the issue. The support for any bill to be passed is now divided among three different camps which eases the pressure on any one of them and therefore makes it very hard to get any one of them passed. A very neat trick by the anti's ,"divide and conquer".
What 10A says is that unless something is illegal then it is legal. Our laws can tell us what is illegal but they cannot tell us what is legal. For instance there can be a law against carrying a gun but there cannot be a law that says you can carry a gun. This is where these reciprocity bills start to bother me as they are as if they are telling that it is lawful to carry a gun which is a violation of 10A whether it is a State's Right or a People's Right. One of the reasons that H.R.822 passed was that it is based strictly on the Commerce Clause where H.R.2900 was not and stood little chance of surviving a court challenge.
As for any of the bills being quickly sent to a committee, that is standard for almost any bill. The committee leader can decide to move on it or not so it is up the the people to put some kind of pressure to get one of these bills moving. Now we not only have the original H.R.822 in committee but two additional bills to confuse the issue. The support for any bill to be passed is now divided among three different camps which eases the pressure on any one of them and therefore makes it very hard to get any one of them passed. A very neat trick by the anti's ,"divide and conquer".
LkWd_Don
Banned
Let us look at what you are saying. H.R.822 passed but H.R.822 is back in committee? Sorry, not true!
Link Removed
MAJOR ACTIONS:
2/18/2011 Introduced in House
11/10/2011 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-277.
11/16/2011 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 272 - 154 (Roll no. 852).
H.R.822 Passed ~~ End of that Story~~
Now, two versions of the Senate version of the bill.. have been introduced, the first was S.2188 was introduced in the Senate, read twice and then sent to the Committee on the Judiciary which is Headed by a Democrat and 10 of the 18 members of the committee are Democrats. The second is S.2213 which was also introduced in the Senate, read twice and sent to the committee of the Judiciary.
Link Removed
Again, with Democrats controlling the committee and Democrats wanting to take your guns.. Do you think they are going to bring this off the table in the Committee without pressure on the members of that committee to get it done?
I don't and personally, I do not want the Federal Government involved in anything that can later be used as a reason to take away my guns. So even though I think National Reciprocity would be nice.. I do not want this to pass.
LkWd_Don
Banned
If it were a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res.) your statement would be close to the truth. As it is not, what you are seeing is simply a means of tracking to keep it from being lost, so do not let yourself get confused by it.
The H.R.822 "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" has Passed! But before it can become law, the Senate has to either pass an identical bill, or a similar bill.
If the Senate passes a similar bill that means there are differences and would then require that a committee including members of both the House and the Senate will have to sit down and draft a compromise bill built primarily from the commonalities of both bills and some give and take on the differences. Once that compromise bill is put together, then that compromise bill will then have to go back to and pass both the House and the Senate before being sent for POTUS signature.
Please take note that the House bill is titled National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
and the most current Senate bill is National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012
That should be a clue that they are not the same.. related yes.. but not the same.
If you look at the link I gave to the Senate version 2213 "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012" above you will find where it says related bills: and listed there is the H.R 822 as well as S. 2188 "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" but if you click on the S.2188's link and then Congressional actions you will come to Link Removed which gives the status of that Senate bill. You will also see that Senate bill was sent to the Committee of the Judiciary March 13, 2012 and has another House Bill related to it which if you follow the status of it is in the committee for homeland security since December of 2011. You need to learn to ignore the garbage and stick to the primary bills.
If there is no action on the S.2213 soon, then someone in the Senate may introduce yet another bill under the title of National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012
LkWd_Don
Banned
On a more personal note. I want our Federal Government to stop Mandating and/or Dictating how the States will or will not do things and that is what this National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act does. Now, if our Congress were to present an Amendment to our Constitution that the States would have to Ratify that extended the Right-to-Carry by law-abiding Citizens without need for a permit to anywhere within the Geographical limits of the United States of America, then that would be something I would back 200%
The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity act as proposed further infringes on our Bill of Rights in that just like ObamaCare it takes away from the Sovereignty of the Individual States and by extension from the people who reside in those states through Federal Mandates. Another problem is that with this being a bill pertaining to Guns what would prevent the Federal Government from allowing all the Armed Citizens to get comfortable with being "permitted" to carry their weapons across state lines and then repealing the law with one that would then also assign a Felony penalty for interstate transport of a firearm without "permission"?
I am sorry, We presently have the 2A and plenty of backing to keep our Right-to-Carry in at least 49 of the 50 United States which each have and establish their own Right-to-Carry Laws. What we should be doing is pushing for State legislation in each of our individual States, that would open the Right-to-Carry Reciprocity from one state to another to be from our Home states to all other States rather than looking to the Feds for a one-size-fits-all solution.
Last edited:
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.