Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: H.R. 2959, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act

  1. #1

    Arrow H.R. 2959, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act


    Subscribe to Remove Post Ads (Also enjoy site upgrades, unlimited photo storage, 1,000 private messages, and more!)
    On August 1, 2013, U.S. Reps. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D- Utah), introduced H.R. 2959, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. This NRA-backed legislation would allow any person with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply to all within its borders. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the 112th Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.
    This would be a huge win for gun rights. Your DL is good in every other state, why shouldn't your CHP/CCW be too? Let's make sure we continue to hit our reps to ensure this has a strong support base when the time comes that the media wants start making their "wild Wild West" claims.

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member
    Shootist
    Classified Feedback: 93 WNC Seabee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Posts
    9,438
    Blog Entries
    1
    As much as I would love to carry in CA, I'm more interested in maintaining, even strengthening, the 10th Amendment.

    I'd be against this.
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.- C.S. Lewis

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by WNC Seabee View Post
    As much as I would love to carry in CA, I'm more interested in maintaining, even strengthening, the 10th Amendment.

    I'd be against this.
    Understood, but as many here have pointed out before we're a bit past that. Nearly every Amendment has been gutted/violated and those violations ignored by SCOTUS.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by WNC Seabee View Post
    As much as I would love to carry in CA, I'm more interested in maintaining, even strengthening, the 10th Amendment.

    I'd be against this.
    I am for this. I do not see a state'a right being violated here when that state in question can regulate whether or not to issue CCP to its citizens.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by WNC Seabee View Post
    As much as I would love to carry in CA, I'm more interested in maintaining, even strengthening, the 10th Amendment.

    I'd be against this.
    This would not be about the 10th Amendment. It would be about forcing states to follow the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. If we allow them to keep violating it, one day we are going to find ourselves in a deeper mess than we are now.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Rider View Post
    I am for this. I do not see a state'a right being violated here when that state in question can regulate whether or not to issue CCP to its citizens.
    That could be a problem too. Some states could decide to not allow CC at all if they didn't want to honor other states. Although I do wish that any CC permit was valid everywhere. I wish the SCOTUS would say that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed our right and that we could exercise CC in all 50 states and DC. But now I'm dreaming.

  7. #7
    Lifetime Member
    Shootist
    Classified Feedback: 93 WNC Seabee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Posts
    9,438
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SPST View Post
    That could be a problem too. Some states could decide to not allow CC at all if they didn't want to honor other states. Although I do wish that any CC permit was valid everywhere. I wish the SCOTUS would say that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed our right and that we could exercise CC in all 50 states and DC. But now I'm dreaming.
    This is where I contradict myself....I can't decide if it's really a 10th or a 2nd issue. On the one hand, the 2nd should be incorporated and all states required to abide by it...loosening the current restrictions. On the other hand, I am against the Fed Gov telling the states what to do outside their enumerated authority.
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.- C.S. Lewis

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Rider View Post
    I am for this. I do not see a state'a right being violated here when that state in question can regulate whether or not to issue CCP to its citizens.
    While I agree with that, it seems this would provide gun control advocates an avenue to create a federal database. Also, once we pave the way for federal control of CC, what happens when we have a Democratic House, Senate, and White House?
    When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right, is of no consequence.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by drypowder View Post
    While I agree with that, it seems this would provide gun control advocates an avenue to create a federal database. Also, once we pave the way for federal control of CC, what happens when we have a Democratic House, Senate, and White House?
    I have to politely disagree. If the federal government passed a law to allow CCP rights as universal, IMO that would strengthen 2A. There is a reason NRA is supportive of this.

    As for having a dem controlled government, we were in that environment. Maybe I am naive but I'd like to think that our constitution is stronger than the lackeys representing us. The beauty of the process is that we can have an influence on the governance of our country by choosing who represents us. I will personally not vote for someone that is anti 2A.

  10. #10
    The right to carry in all States that issue a CWP is the "give". Whatever the "take " from the other side will be scares me . They don't just allow us stuff like this. I'm with DryPowder on this...I think it'll be an avenue to lose rights elsewhere like in the form of a national database. If we can carry nationally, they'll want to know what's being carried... Or something along those lines.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Rider View Post
    As for having a dem controlled government, we were in that environment. Maybe I am naive but I'd like to think that our constitution is stronger than the lackeys representing us. The beauty of the process is that we can have an influence on the governance of our country by choosing who represents us. I will personally not vote for someone that is anti 2A.
    No, we do not have a fully Dem controlled federal government (the U.S. House). You'll know when we do because that's when we will have:
    1. so-called universal background checks that eliminate undocumented private sales and put every firearms transaction on a federal 4473 (which will be the precursor for a registry)
    2. a new AWB, harsher than the first one and without an expiration date
    3. magazine capacity restrictions
    4. whatever else they can dream up and pass

    For those who doubt this, consider that the Democratic party is not the Democratic party of the Clinton era or earlier. The party is controlled by the progressives today. And gun control (and eventual ban/confiscation) is a priority for them.
    When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right, is of no consequence.

  12. #12
    You need to be careful what you wish for on this one. What you'll more than likely end up with is a nationwide carry program, that meets the requirements of all the states, including the may issue with all their restrictions. What looks like a win will really turn into a loss as it will make it harder to acquire a CCW in states that it was previously easy to acquire in.

    We're (the people in more gun friendly states) are better off with what we have now and keeping the feds out of this.

    The gov, under our buddy Barry is dedicated to pushing gun control, if they can't get new laws pushed through banning it, then they try twisting whatever is on the books to suit their needs. Take the BATFE's open comments right now on upping the requirements for a trust.. has a single violation occurred which resulted in prosecution, NO, they say so themselves, but it "might make it safer" so you'll see that go in effect, all without a vote. Things like this will be twisted around just as much.

    And if you say it can't happen, that laws meant to protect gun ownership can't be twisted to restrict it, take a look at how the civilian sales of new machine guns was restricted in 86, it was added onto a bill protecting hunting rights, firearm ownership, private transfer of weapons, etc. in the late hours of the night without a full body of representatives being present and passed without an actual counted vote. That law is illegal because of the way it was passed, yet here it is in 2013 and it's still impossible for me to go buy a full auto scar. And that was passed through a gun friendly house and senate, think of what they'd try to do today.

  13. #13
    Not Subscribed
    Gunslinger

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by WNC Seabee View Post
    On the one hand, the 2nd should be incorporated and all states required to abide by it..
    I am near 100% certain that there was a recent SCOTUS case that did incorporate the 2nd. The problem is that some states are violating it while claiming that restricting it into non-existence, e.g. good cause clauses, is not an infringement.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPST View Post
    That could be a problem too. Some states could decide to not allow CC at all if they didn't want to honor other states.
    Illinois tried doing this. I have read several times that having no carry options is a 2nd violation. From what I gather they must have either open or concealed carry, but not necessarily both. It is certainly a quagmire.

    In my view, the Feds are culpable in creating the current mess and like it or not, it is going to take fed effort to clean it up. A simple rule, such as saying states must recognize each others permits, while not getting involved in the permitting process would be a good thing.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jerz_subbie View Post
    Understood, but as many here have pointed out before we're a bit past that. Nearly every Amendment has been gutted/violated and those violations ignored by SCOTUS.
    That's a little like trying to drive from Raleigh to Atlanta, getting lost along the way, seeing a sign that says "Welcome to Tennessee," and then deciding that you might as well go see Memphis.

    Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that Congress really wants to do something positive with this bill, our recent history is littered with well-intentioned laws that are each a giant millstone around our collective necks (Americans with Disabilities Act, Obamacare, No Child Left Behind, etc. etc. etc.).

  15. #15
    My fear is that establishing a law like 2959 would be the first step to the constitutional elimination of the Second Amendment. Why would we need that pesky old Amendment when we have this fresh, progressive, all-encompassing law to take its place?

    The current ilk of pols also knows that laws can easily be made more restrictive after enactment thru judicial interpretation.

    The Second Amendment, as originally written and intended, actually is our national carry law.
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. --Ayn Rand

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by trcubed View Post
    My fear is that establishing a law like 2959 would be the first step to the constitutional elimination of the Second Amendment. Why would we need that pesky old Amendment when we have this fresh, progressive, all-encompassing law to take its place?

    The current ilk of pols also knows that laws can easily be made more restrictive after enactment thru judicial interpretation.

    The Second Amendment, as originally written and intended, actually is our national carry law.
    Or worse yet, via the executive branch...
    I believe in free men, free markets, the rule of law under the Founder's Republic and that the Constitution extends to everyone regardless of race, creed, color or religion. I most especially believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms as the ultimate guarantor of liberty. - Mike Vanderboegh

  17. #17
    The thing that scares me about H.R. 2959 is what the most prominent anti-gun politicians say about a national concealed carry law.

    Diane Feinstein: "...require nearly every state to accept the concealed carry gun permits issued by other states—regardless of the permit standards in either state" and "...chips away at gun safety standards and undermines states’ rights."

    Chuck Schumer: "...particularly dangerous to New York, which applies some of the most thorough background screenings on concealed carry permit applicants in the country," "...many states have weaker conceal and carry laws" and "...create serious problems for law enforcement officers, who are unable to verify permits granted by other states because there is no national database."

    In short, Feinstein and Schumer are not categorically rejecting a nationwide concealed carry law, but saying that such a law should be based on all states meeting the requirements of the states (i.e. CA and NY) with the most stringent standards AND having strong federal participation in the process (e.g. a national database).

    Even if a "clean" law was passed initially, we already have a clear indication of how the anti-gun faction would be trying to change it over time.
    doubling down on stupid is no way to go through life - Chdamn

  18. #18
    Not Subscribed
    Gunslinger

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,470
    Those two loud mouth imbeciles are only 2 of 50 voices in the Senate. There are plenty of others, enough so that reason can prevail. Just not with the current Senate makeup.

  19. #19
    i thought national reciprocity was already passed on 15 Dec 1791, why the need to do so again?

    The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves

    The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by diablos30 View Post
    i thought national reciprocity was already passed on 15 Dec 1791, why the need to do so again?


    My thoughts exactly.
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. --Ayn Rand

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •