close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

National Right to Carry

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Rollbar, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. Rollbar

    Rollbar Minister-KF7JKO

    92
    0
    Mar 10, 2012
    Nevada
    http://www.usacarry.com/national-ri...utm_campaign=USACN-3-14-2012&utm_medium=email


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

    by NRA-ILA on MARCH 14, 2012 in NATIONAL FIREARM NEWS, NEWS

    “National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate
    Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822,which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

    S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

    Today 49 states either issue carry permits or otherwise authorize law-abiding people to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. 41 states have fair “shall issue” permit systems that allow any law-abiding person to get a permit.

    In contrast to dire predictions from anti-gun groups, Right-to-Carry laws have been enormously successful. Interstate reciprocity will serve as a fundamental protection of the right to self-defense by providing people with the ability to protect themselves not only in their home states, but anywhere they travel where carry concealed carry is legal.

    Contrary to the false claims of some, these bills would not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind.

    These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

    Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to cosponsor S. 2188. You can call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or send them an email by clicking here
     

  2. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    Me, too. If the Senate passes this, Obama will sign it.
     
  3. sglock45

    sglock45

    209
    1
    Jun 1, 2011
    bloomsburg pa
    at least the only state we would have to worry about is Illinois

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  4. Oramac

    Oramac

    1,001
    0
    Oct 15, 2008
    And for that reason, half of me hopes it doesn't pass. I don't want Obama to be able to claim any kind of Pro-2A stances at all in his bid for reelection. The guy may have done more for gun sales in the last 4 years than any one person, but he certainly is NOT a supporter of our 2A.
     
  5. oldman11

    oldman11

    4,990
    1,877
    Mar 1, 2012
    Texas
    From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.
     
  6. liberty addict

    liberty addict

    225
    1
    Jun 17, 2005
    Oklahoma
    Look, this bill is unconstitutional anyhow; (of course so are CCW permits), but anyway HOW can you say you want the Feds telling the states what to do? and where do you think that will stop? Yes, the Dems have a hidden agenda all right, they want to SQUASH CCW rights period, and they think this is a start. I for one do not want the Feds anywhere near states CCW laws.
     
  7. xmanhockey7

    xmanhockey7

    2,294
    77
    Dec 6, 2010
    Michigan
    It is very possible that they are pro gun democrats. Just like there are plenty antigun republicans.
     
  8. HarleyGuy

    HarleyGuy

    3,420
    132
    Mar 29, 2008
    Yes, but both Alaska and West Virginia are very friendly gun states and I doubt that either of the two Senators would really want to **** their constituents off.
     
  9. oldman11

    oldman11

    4,990
    1,877
    Mar 1, 2012
    Texas
    Yeah, you're right. I wasn't thinking. I lived in AK for a couple of years a long time ago.
     
  10. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    I understand. But my world is bigger than Obama and his feelings. What do you want him to do, force the Senate to defeat this bill and then claim he's a still a 2A supporter and would have signed it if the "people" had wanted it first? Learn to take a victory like the National Park carry victory. Gun rights are a total non-issue in the next election, accept every win you can get. Obama is NOT a gun rights supporter but at least we got second best which is couldn't care less one way or the other (he's not a gun rights crusher like Romney).
     
  11. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    If this is a sneaky bill, why isn't the GOP stopping it? Are they too stupid to see the "hidden agenda"? LOL LOL

    There is no hidden agenda.
     
  12. MinnesnowtaWild

    MinnesnowtaWild

    571
    0
    Dec 26, 2011
    I agree. The rhetoric is overwhelming sometimes. It's this kind of stuff that keeps me from labeling myself "republican" instead of "independent".
     
  13. BrewerGeorge

    BrewerGeorge

    205
    0
    Nov 29, 2011
    :goodpost:
     
  14. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    9,318
    851
    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa
    What does the NRA-ILA have to say about this bill?
     
  15. xmanhockey7

    xmanhockey7

    2,294
    77
    Dec 6, 2010
    Michigan
    They're making a huge push for this bill.
     
  16. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964

    19,702
    2,136
    Sep 4, 2009
    U.S.A.
    This was talked about extensively a few months ago when it was up in the House. Same arguments, pro and con, apply.

    Bottom line for me is I don't think the NRA is so stupid that they would support something that is actually stealthily anti-2nd.
     
  17. TX expat

    TX expat

    375
    0
    Dec 26, 2011
    KC MO
    The big issue I have with this bill is what it is going to allow the Federal Government to do in the future. Sections 3 and 4 weren't even in the original bill but they were stuck in, in order to get passed on to the Senate.

    Ask yourself why those are in there and what could it mean for concealed carry holders, especially those that use out of state permits. When I look down the road I can see the Federal government intervening in out of state permits via Section 3 or making a pitch to get a hook in permits period via Section 4. If this bill were as transparent as the proponents would like you to believe, the Fed wouldn't need to create federal studies into anything about a state issed document...

    Believe what you want to about this bill but don't be so foolish to believe that because the NRA is for it, then it must be good. The NRA is a money making organization and it's no less shortsighted than any other political organization. What they approve of today, they'll use as a reason to ask for more donations tomorrow. IMO the idea that this is totally benign and cannot be turned against CCW holders or firearms owners in general is a total whitewash; especially when only one of the three sections is actually about the reciprocity, the other two thirds is about audits and studies that the Federal Govt. is going perform regarding some aspect of state licensing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2012
  18. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    Are you a laywer or is that a layperson's decription of "additional sections" and "federal oversight of state documents/processes/databases."

    In the future, when the Federal government goes to do [whatever you claim they are getting ready to do], then we will vote it down and say no. When they make the pitch, push back.

    Frankly I've never heard of a law that creates the framework or lays the groundwork for future activity by allowing the opposite to occur today. This one is new to me.

    they are just studies and audits, only that. not blueprints for a government takeover. If it is, that's weak. That's a pretty lousy attempt and if I can figure out how to outmanuever it, so will the states.

    Name one other NRA supported legislation that we all hated and they went along with anyway (and it passed) and the NRA supported it only for financial gain. There isn't one.

    Nobody is saying this is great. We are saying it is better than what we have today and most importantly to me, it helps keep permit holders from being criminals just because another state says so. Because we are not all perfect and we carry firearms that your enemies hate, one day you will thank this bill if it becomes law. To me, that's priceless over what I might happen to think Congress is secretly planning even though they aren't.
     
  19. TX expat

    TX expat

    375
    0
    Dec 26, 2011
    KC MO
    A. No, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure what you are asking about. Those sections I quoted are directly from the bill text as it stands in Congress now.

    B. You won't vote anything down unless you happen to actually be a member of Congress and assuming that Congress won't pass something that the majority of Americans are against is fairly unrealistic. Most Americans were against Obama's healthcare reform but it passed... And all politicians know that the majority of Americans have very short memories and will go with the latest pitch that comes across the TV rather than remembering what someone did three years ago.

    C. This bill doesn't allow the opposite of anything. All I'm saying is that could allow the Federal Government an inroad into state carry permits because that's exactly what it is doing by getting involved with them in the first place. States have successfully navigated all sorts of reciprocity with other states without the Federal Government creating Federal law to cover it.

    D. Why does the Fed GAO need those studies and audits at all? What purpose does it serve to have the Federal Government study out of state permits and the ability of LE to validate permits on a national level?

    E. I don't study what the NRA approves of or disapproves of, and it really doesn't matter to me. Your "if they try it, we'll vote it down' ideology is the same as theirs. I just don't agree with taking something simply because of the shortsighted gain and allowing a larger problem an opportunity to get a hook in.

    The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business forcing this sort of thing onto the states. Period. The only way it's even within their Constitutional framework is if they are enforcing the Second Amendment, which they are not. In fact, if you look at the original text of the bill and the current text of the bill, you'll see that all of the "Constitutional" mentions have been deleted. If the Federal Government wants to start actually enforcing the Second Amendment, then I'll be the first in line to support it. When they stop allowing certain states to circumvent the Bill of Rights with State and City statutes, I'll applaud till my hands are sore. That's not what this does and I think it's shortsighted to assume that once you give the Federal Government a little power over state permits that they won't then seek further power over them.