Concealed Carry Reciprocity for all?

Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
52,005
Location
Arizona
This from the NRA:

Friday, July 17, 2009


Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And
Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.

While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.

Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge these changes in state laws and recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

And, carry permit holders have demonstrated that they are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida has issued more carry permits than any other state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) as a result of firearms-related crimes by permit holders.

The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and—most important of all—will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves when deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.

Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter amendment. E-mail them today and call them on Monday.
To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, call (202) 224-3121.

NRA-ILA :: URGENT - U.S. Senate To Consider Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early Next Week
 
Register to hide this ad
We don't need the Federal Government via the legislative and executive branches granting us access to a right that the U.S. Constitution already does. This should be decided in the courts.
 
We don't need the Federal Government via the legislative and executive branches granting us access to a right that the U.S. Constitution already does. This should be decided in the courts.

That might be the wrongest comment I've seen in a while.
We need to pursue every avenue to expand our rights. The legislative is the best, representing the will of the people. Certainly much more so than some guys in black robes.

It will be great news, not that I expect a place like Chicago or NYC to honor it. I've always said we will have achieved real RKBA in this country when I can walk down 5th Avenue in N.Y open carrying a pistol and not get stopped or harassed.
 
That might be the wrongest comment I've seen in a while.
We need to pursue every avenue to expand our rights. The legislative is the best, representing the will of the people. Certainly much more so than some guys in black robes.

It will be great news, not that I expect a place like Chicago or NYC to honor it. I've always said we will have achieved real RKBA in this country when I can walk down 5th Avenue in N.Y open carrying a pistol and not get stopped or harassed.
Perhaps you're right, Rabbi, as this is a little different than a National Carry license such as we've discussed here in the past. I guess the best explaination of my first post is to share my sentiments on the present state of law and government in America as it relates to this issue:

The states need to be forced to comply with Federal law that is already written, i.e. the second ammendment. The Constitution isn't a list of suggestions. It's the law. Passing national reciprocity is a moot point with the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House. They will shoot it down. The most that will come of this is that some fence sitting gun owners will get ticked off when the Democrats and RINOs block this thing and vote against them next time. I do think that would be a good outcome and that's probably the real reason why such legislation is introduced at a time like this. I guess this kind of thing frustrates me in no small way because I don't think we need more laws in this country, especially redundant laws that ensure the same freedoms as those already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We need to return to Constitutional law and politicians that oppose, or ignore the Constitution, should be removed from power.

Don't write off the guys in black robes they gave us Heller last year.
 
Last edited:
=flop-shank; We need to return to Constitutional law and politicians that oppose, or ignore the Constitution, should be removed from power.

It sure would be nice if it were that easy!

The problem is that a great many of the sheeple don't want it that way. They are afraid to place responsibility on themselves. Thus, they keep voting these nit-wits into office. Speaking of which, the two libs from my state are complete left wing wackos who would never support this bill.

WG840
 
It sure would be nice if it were that easy!

The problem is that a great many of the sheeple don't want it that way. They are afraid to place responsibility on themselves. Thus, they keep voting these nit-wits into office. Speaking of which, the two libs from my state are complete left wing wackos who would never support this bill.

WG840
I agree.

That's why we need to stop the weasels and their unconstitutional laws in the courts and oppose those who would put activist judges on the bench. Once judges start legislating from the bench, they become lawmakers that aren't accountable to the people, and the rule of law is lost as well. The fact of the matter is that this country is turning into an idiot collection and the politicians are a perfect reflection of those that put them there. America cannot remain this stupid much longer and remain free. It may already be too late.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you're right, Rabbi, as this is a little different than a National Carry license such as we've discussed here in the past. I guess the best explaination of my first post is to share my sentiments on the present state of law and government in America as it relates to this issue:

The states need to be forced to comply with Federal law that is already written, i.e. the second ammendment. The Constitution isn't a list of suggestions. It's the law. Passing national reciprocity is a moot point with the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House. They will shoot it down. The most that will come of this is that some fence sitting gun owners will get ticked off when the Democrats and RINOs block this thing and vote against them next time. I do think that would be a good outcome and that's probably the real reason why such legislation is introduced at a time like this. I guess this kind of thing frustrates me in no small way because I don't think we need more laws in this country, especially redundant laws that ensure the same freedoms as those already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We need to return to Constitutional law and politicians that oppose, or ignore the Constitution, should be removed from power.

Don't write off the guys in black robes they gave us Heller last year.

I agree a national carry license is a poor idea.
Whether the 2A actually applies to the states or not is currently a hot legal question, with one circuit saying yes and one no. This will go to the Supremes.
Even if it does, states (and the feds) are free to make "reasonable restrictions" on ownership and carry. I think NYC's carry permit scheme would pass this kind of test, even though it restricts carry to a tiny elite. This is why a national law mandating recognition would be important.
As for the current Congress, this is the same one that passed carry in national parks, so don't prejudge what they can do.
 
So if I live in Florida and have a valid carry permit, Massachusetts, who does not currently honor Florida's permit, would have to?

What about a state like Wisconsin that does not allowed concealed carry at all?
 
I think the idea is that you would be bound by the restrictions of whatever state you were in. In a place like WI there would be some Federal guidelines as default restrictions.
 
So if I live in Florida and have a valid carry permit, Massachusetts, who does not currently honor Florida's permit, would have to?

What about a state like Wisconsin that does not allowed concealed carry at all?

Good questions.

My understanding of "reciprocity" is that it would apply only to states with a mechanism for licensing. So, your license would be valid in any state with a licensing provision. A welcome change to anyone who travels much.
 
I sent messages to both of my Senators asking them to support this. I don't hold out much hope though. National Reciprocity is one of those bills that has been getting introduced for the last 10 -15 years. I don't think it's even ever come up for a vote before. Sure would make life simpler in some ways. I've got my permit in VA and that covers me for the vast majority of my traveling.

I'll keep watching and hoping, but I won't hold my breath.:rolleyes:
 
So, those that acquired CHL's from other states to broaden their coverage, they become what?
 
The key paragraph is:

Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.



So states like WI and MA are given a way out of honoring other states licenses. At least that is how I am reading this.
 
I see where the "honorable" Chucky Schumer of NY has indicated that he will fight this tooth and nail, even if he has to pull the filibuster stunt forever. True to form.
 
I am all for the sentiment behind this, but I'm afraid it will open a can of worms. There are already groups attempting to use the FF&C clause to force states to recognize same-sex marriages from states where it is legal. I am a strong believer in Federalism, and I believe each state should have the power to set its own standards for regulation of licensing and permits, whether it be for doctors, lawyers, or pistol toters.

Living in GA, where gun laws are fairly non-restrictive, I guess I hate to see the status quo upset. Our legislators are fairly responsive to gun-owners' wishes.
 
Last edited:
I live 2 miles outside of NY City and my "Right to Carry is restricted to back and forth to the range and while hunting.In NY City if I am armed I will get arrested cause my NY State pistol license is NO GOOD IN NYC.Forget Jersey,if you are carrying the gun and each hollow point defensive round is a SEPERATE CHARGE,you go directly to jail.With these psycho gun laws it will be a cold day in hell before that federal law gets put in effect........Mike
 
Back
Top