House Weighs National Reciprocity Bill (HR822)

[Lucas156]

It just seems to me to move the 2A realm of regulation from the states to the federal government. My belief is that the states should be more powerful than the federal government but over time it has turned to the opposite. Any step towards letting the federal government control more just seems like a bad thing all around. If they can command the states in all forms of the 2A it just seems to me for it to be easier for them to take 2A rights away. Someone please poke a hole in my logic.

 

[finity]

But then it would be legal for us to carry in Illinois. The politicians in Chicago will never let this happen.

No that's not correct.

In order for a license to be valid in a state that state has to have some form of licensing available to it's own residents. Since IL doesn't even have a licensing system AT ALL then they would not be subject to the (hopefully) new law.

It would be the same as if they didn't allow their residents to drive because they didn't offer drivers licenses. Since their residents can't drive then they wouldn't have to allow non-residents to drive either.

It just seems to me to move the 2A realm of regulation from the states to the federal government. My belief is that the states should be more powerful than the federal government but over time it has turned to the opposite. Any step towards letting the federal government control more just seems like a bad thing all around. If they can command the states in all forms of the 2A it just seems to me for it to be easier for them to take 2A rights away. Someone please poke a hole in my logic.

Well first off 2A regulation IS already in the realm of the federal government since the "2A" is in the federal Constitution.

The states are more powerful than the federal government in matters pertaining to things that occur solely within the state borders.

Rights are not one of those things. They are universal. You should have the same Rights whether you live in one state or another. I know we're not there yet as the SCOTUS hasn't ruled that ALL Rights are incorporated against the states but as long as the federal government is ensuring that the states are protecting the Rights of it's citizens then I'm OK with that.

That is also Constitutional since the passage of the 14A declared that the federal Bill of Rights pertained to the states (sort of) with it's "due process" clause. I just wish that the Amendment would have been worded more strongly to unequivocally ensure the result that it intended to create instead of allowing some sort of interpretation by the SCOTUS.

We can also see throughout history what can happen when states are left to their own devices in protecting their citizens Rights (see IL gun laws as one example). If the states were doing such a great job of protecting those Rights then the SCOTUS wouldn't have had the opportunity to even step in & incorporate the BOR against the states since the SCOTUS can't get involved unless someone has been harmed by a law. The fact that almost all Rights HAVE been incorporated tells me that the states haven't done a very good job in that regard.

 

[38special]

Hmm. I almost responded with dislike as I'd rather states have sovereign rights. That said - the 2nd amendment does give the Federal government authority here so I'd like to see this pass.

 

[Westside]

We can only hope this gains traction. But, something in my gut tells me not this year or next year.

 

[bingley]

Here's what you need to know - H.R.822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

From the link:

Official Summary

2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

It sounds like an improvement of interstate reciprocity. I suspect this means places like California and New York will still be out for us.

I'm not putting a whole lot of hope in this bill.

Da Bing

 

[maxmayhem]

From the article..."But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons."

Translation:
"Opponents who are communist, socialist, facist, and morons say the bill tramples on the states ability to ignore the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and TRAMPLE on the rights of law abiding citizens who have the God-given right to defend themselves even in the Republics of Illinois and California. It also makes it impossible to maintain a police state anytime they see fit" What bunk! These people want to make a felon out of people who exercise their constitutional and God-given rights! Bah!

 

[LPMan59]

attach it to obummer's jobs bill lolz

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

You all are like the kids at Christmas wanting a moped but end up getting socks.

Never gonna happen.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Heath Shuler co authored? Wow, haven't seen that name in forever

 

[superjoe76]

I thought the 2nd Amendment said I could. Hmmm... guess that right has been infringed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Never gonna happen.

A version of this bill has been introduced every session since 1995.

It will likely fail this session as well. However, there is an election November 2012. January 2013 may present an optimal opportunity.

 

[jgreiner]

This might be something to follow.

House Weighs Bill To Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines | Fox News

I have thought long and hard on this issue. I loathe giving the feds any more power than they ALREADY have when it comes to firearms. But I also DESPISE having my RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS denied to me when I cross into ILLINOIS. And Chicago....don't EVEN get me started about it.....

 

[Bill of Rights]

From the article..."But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons."

Translation:
"Opponents who are communist, socialist, facist, and morons say the bill tramples on the states ability to ignore the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and TRAMPLE on the rights of law abiding citizens who have the God-given right to defend themselves even in the Republics of Illinois and California. It also makes it impossible to maintain a police state anytime they see fit" What bunk! These people want to make a felon out of people who exercise their constitutional and God-given rights! Bah!

This argument sounds exactly like the various cities and towns' arguments against state-level preemption this last legislative session.

You all are like the kids at Christmas wanting a moped but end up getting socks.

Never gonna happen.

My, my... aren't we feeling negative today....

There are some who said Wisconsin would never allow CCW, too. For that matter, back in 1986, when only six states had "shall-issue" permits, 17 had no permits at all (denying right-to-carry), and 26 had "may-issue" (meaning essentially that they had no permits at all, in many cases), who would have thought that in a mere 26 years, we would have four states doing Constitutional Carry, 35 "shall-issue", 10 "may-issue" (and one of those acting as if it was shall issue) and only one left that didn't recognize the right... and that due solely to the politicians of a single city.

I have thought long and hard on this issue. I loathe giving the feds any more power than they ALREADY have when it comes to firearms. But I also DESPISE having my RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS denied to me when I cross into ILLINOIS. And Chicago....don't EVEN get me started about it.....

Like you, I've given this lots of thought. Someone said upthread that the Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate guns, via the 2A being a part of it. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. The 2A, in concert with the 9A, 10A, 14A, the hated "commerce clause", and both Heller and McDonald do, I think, give the feds the power to tell the states that they must follow the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit, for example), however, that power is limited solely to imposing preemption, not to adding regulations such as where a state may or may not allow carry. The striking down of the GFSZ act (in part, IIRC) lends support to that thinking.

Like you, I worry that this will be watered down to the form that it had some years ago, wherein if a state did not issue permits (IL, KS, NE, and WI, at the time, IIRC), then a given list of places were to be put in place telling them where firearms were prohibited. This list included such things as banks, bars, sporting events, etc., etc., and the bill was soundly defeated. It doesn't take much imagination to know that that list would quickly have eroded the edges of the rights we enjoy here and any other state that had less regulation than that.

I think accepting that the feds have the power to tell the states to comply with the Constitution is not so much taking power from the states to give to the fed, rather it is taking a power and removing it from both, as neither can be trusted to play nicely with it.

And yes, I'm making the analogy of governments being our children, rather than the reverse.

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." --Ronald Reagan

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gunowner930]

Heath Shuler co authored? Wow, haven't seen that name in forever

I guess the whole professional football thing didn't work out too well for him, but he has been a pro-2a Dem.

The 2nd Amendment has been incorporated to the states. It can't be argued anymore that the 2nd Amendment is a limitation on the Federal Government, yet the states can defecate on the 2nd Amendment if they so choose. Of course part of the 2nd Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." I think bearing arms is similiar to carrying a sidearm when leaving your home . If the states don't want to recognize the 2nd Amendment, I have no problem with a bill that would force them to do so.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the states don't want to recognize the 2nd Amendment, I have no problem with a bill that would force them to do so.

Yep, tie it to their gas money and we won't see any gun control in this country.

This CAN be done come January 2013. We just need to stay in the fight.

 

[mrjarrell]

Apparently, the anti's are having fits and pulling out their best (and it isn't very good).

If defensive gun uses are illegal, that's indictment of law, not of self-defense - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[Kedric]

Do I dare to get my hopes up for them actually doing something right that has been long overdo?

Nahhhh they'll find a way to mess it up. Though it those are examples of the best rebuttals the morons have been able to come up with, it seems they are reeling more than usual from their lack of common sense.

Here's hoping!

 

[mk2ja]

Hmm. I almost responded with dislike as I'd rather states have sovereign rights. That said - the 2nd amendment does give the Federal government authority here so I'd like to see this pass.

Likewise.

I even started talking on Twitter about how I opposed this, but as I talked it out, I came to realize that I should support the effort!

 

[finity]

Someone said upthread that the Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate guns, via the 2A being a part of it. This is a very dangerous line of thinking.

I hope you weren't talking about my post because that's not what I said.

If you WERE taliking about my post then:

The person I responded to said that they didn't feel comfortable with the federal government "regulating" the 2A. I responded by saying that it was ALREADY under the "regulation" of the federal government because that is what the 2A is limiting on. The states have (or had) NOTHING to do with the 2A. At least until the SCOTUS incorporated the 2A against the states.

Maybe instead of using the word "regulation" I could have used "domain" but I simply used it because the other person did.

No government actually "regulates" the 2A. The 2A regulates government. And until MacDonald it only regulated the federal government. Hence the 2A was in the domain of the federal government not the states.

The 2A, in concert with the 9A, 10A, 14A, the hated "commerce clause", and both Heller and McDonald do, I think, give the feds the power to tell the states that they must follow the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit, for example), however, that power is limited solely to imposing preemption, not to adding regulations such as where a state may or may not allow carry. The striking down of the GFSZ act (in part, IIRC) lends support to that thinking.

I think accepting that the feds have the power to tell the states to comply with the Constitution is not so much taking power from the states to give to the fed, rather it is taking a power and removing it from both, as neither can be trusted to play nicely with it.

I think if you read my posts again you'll see that the above is kind of what I was saying.

If you weren't talking about my posts then...never mind.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I hope you weren't talking about my post because that's not what I said.

If you WERE taliking about my post then:

The person I responded to said that they didn't feel comfortable with the federal government "regulating" the 2A. I responded by saying that it was ALREADY under the "regulation" of the federal government because that is what the 2A is limiting on. The states have (or had) NOTHING to do with the 2A. At least until the SCOTUS incorporated the 2A against the states.

Maybe instead of using the word "regulation" I could have used "domain" but I simply used it because the other person did.

No government actually "regulates" the 2A. The 2A regulates government. And until MacDonald it only regulated the federal government. Hence the 2A was in the domain of the federal government not the states.





I think if you read my posts again you'll see that the above is kind of what I was saying.

If you weren't talking about my posts then...never mind.

I had a few things going on when I wrote that, along with a couple of interruptions. Looking back at the posts now, I see that it was your line, "Well first off 2A regulation IS already in the realm of the federal government since the "2A" is in the federal Constitution." to which I was responding. I was also on the iPod at the time, and didn't see who said what... I often expand the post to read the text of it, but that means I have to push the authors' names offscreen... Had I seen it was you saying it, I might not have commented at all, because I know your stance on these things and how we tend to see things similarly.

Even saying that, though, while your post did say many of the same things, the two being written independently of each other can only serve to support the position on which we're agreeing.

Thanks for your post, my friend.

Blessings,
Bill