National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    A new bill has been introduced in Congress allowing for national reciprocity, even in states that do not issue firearms licenses.

    HR 4547

    Essentially, it places off limits the same areas any state does if the state issues licenses. If the state does not issue licenses, then it places the following locations off limits, stating one cannot carry in a state that does not issue licenses:

    in a police station,

    in a public detention facility,

    in a courthouse,

    in a public polling place,

    at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body,

    in a school,

    at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms,

    in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or

    inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport



    That second to last one makes it clear that the congressman who introduced it is from Florida . . . :wink:
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    A BILL
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

    `Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

    `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

    `(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    `926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    While I do not like all of the proposed federal restrictions, it still allows more places than one can carry under Georgia law! :shock:
     
  4. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    If this is enacted, it would be a decent spring board for revamping the public gathering law. Georgia suddenly would be one of the most (if not the most) restrictive states in the country for carrying.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Argue - let us just go with the federal restrictions?
     
  6. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of, "Georgia has the most restrictive gun carry laws in the nation, given the passage of the federal legislation. It's time to overhaul Georgia's laws. Here's a model bill that a liberal state like Colorado passed...."
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    :D

    Yes, it shocks me that some say it cannot be accomplished here if it can be accomplished in Colorado.
     
  8. Sharky

    Sharky New Member

    4,981
    0
    0
    Well this would be an incredible leap if you ask me. I really think if there is to be any law restricting CCW it should be across the board. If the FBI says we are clear then why the heck do states get to govern whats ours anyways!

    Hopefully we can get a start and move from there.
     
  9. Manwell

    Manwell New Member

    51
    0
    0
    I’ve contacted my congressman and senators to check on their support level for HR 4547. So far only Westmoreland’s office has responded. I have sent e-mails and left voice mail messages. Some of Westmoreland’s people are to send me detailed information concerning his stance. The lady I spoke with said he is very “pro gunâ€â€¦ we’ll see.

    Manwell
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    I have conversed with Westmoreland (when he was a state level legislator) on gun issues, and I believe his office gave you accurate information, based on that prior discussion.
     
  11. Sharky

    Sharky New Member

    4,981
    0
    0
    I thnk it could help GA's wacked out laws. We need serious overhauling.
     
  12. Tazfanatic33

    Tazfanatic33 New Member

    39
    0
    0
    I have sent a message to Representative Nathan Deal on this and have not gotten a response from him as of yet. I have also sent a message to Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. So far, the only response I have gotten is from Senator Saxby Chambliss. The following is his letter:

    Thank you for writing me regarding the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is good to hear from you on this important issue.

    We must ensure the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. Sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned with their personal safety have a right to own a gun for these legitimate purposes. The ability of decent hard-working Americans to own a gun, whether for sport or protection is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromised. Only a government that does not trust its citizens would refuse them the right to bear arms.

    Since coming to Congress, I have worked very hard to defeat efforts to erode our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Rest assured, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I will continue to ensure the rights of gun owners will not be further infringed upon.

    Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may ever be of assistance to you.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Has anybody received any substantive feedback on this legislation?
     
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,122
    71
    48
    federalism

    I cannot support Congress passing any law on any subject that is not allocated to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. I assume that Congress will point to the "power to regulate commerce among the Several States, and Indian Tribes" as the basis of their authority to, in effect, create a national gun permit that all states must honor? I'm not sure this will work for this kind of legislation. I think it merits further investigation from a legal (federalism) standpoint.
     
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,122
    71
    48
    Interstate Commerce

    It clearly would not be sufficient (at least to conservatives / original intent strict constructionists like myself) for Congress to claim this authority as to any firearm that has, or whose component parts have, moved in interstate commerce. I would never allow them to pass ANTI-GUN restrictions on that basis, so neither would I allow them to pass a law the I like by citing that B.S. as a source of authority.

    Now if this Act were to apply to people who were in the process of engaging in interstate travel or interstate commerce, speficically a temporary move from one state to another to purchase goods, services, or to do activities that are specific to that other state (sightseeing, tourism, etc.) THEN this would be a much stronger "interstate commerce" nexus, I think.
     
  16. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Gunsmoker,
    Fundamentally, I agree with you. But, aren't we way past congress not staying within its boundaries when it comes to the commerce clause and guns? I would be happy to see this bill passed, only to be struck down by SCOTUS along with most of the provisions of the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the crime bill of 1994, etc.

    On the other hand, your mention of what would be acceptable is noteworthy. Essentially, anyone who is not a resident of a given state would be engaging in interstate commerce when visiting that state. So, anyone driving through (or otherwise visiting) IL with a permit from another state would be exempt from IL's carry laws, but IL residents would be stuck with them? This might work out well, as it would tend to push IL residents and legislators to want to lift the restrictions from which they only suffer.
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Well, Gunsmoker, they did go down the Commerce Clause trail on this one.

    I think that is wrong.

    But did you ever consider the purpose of the 14th Amendment?

    States disarming black citizens was an expressed purpose of its adoption. How is this different? Therefore, I cannot accept the "not allocated to the federal government" line of reasoning when it comes to legislation aimed at preventing states from interfering with rights.

    THIS is what the 14th Amendment is about, not sodomy and abortion (neither of which would have been recognized by the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment).
     
  18. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Malum,
    While there's truth to what you are saying, I'm not sure I can find a right to defend myself (and therefore carry) in the 14th amendment any better than I can find a right to engage in some good ol' buggery. Can you elaborate on how you would bootstrap the 14th into empowering Congress to pass this bill?
     
  19. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    I think I would be more comfortable arguing that the 14th requires the state to allow me to protect myself by relying on Griswold and Roe than by arguing around them. Can the right to keep one's self alive be less important (or real) than the right to keep my sexual activities and my procreation decisions private? If I can have condoms in my console to protect myself from AIDS, shouldn't I be able to have a .38 in my console to protect myself from a rapist with AIDS?
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. To buttress the point, the Supreme Court clearly stated that blacks could not carry guns. Citizenship, it was concluded, would bring about all sorts of perceived "evils."

    "It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased. . . .and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

    Most of you would recognize this as the infamous Dred Scott decision.

    Following the Civil War, Congress adopted three Amendments to the Constitution directly bearing on the rights of citizens, including newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, was aimed at stopping the states from interfering with the rights of citizens by granting the power to Congress to prevent state action that interfered with rights of citizenship.

    "Black codes" disarmed blacks throughout the south (among many other evils). Much of the disarming was direct, but some of the disarming was accomplished through indirect means. A permitting system was one of the indirect means utilized.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted during debates in which Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action.

    From Stephen Halbrook, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 5 J. on Firearms & Pub. Pol'y 7-28 (1993):

    Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

    . . .

    The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

    No court has ever considered Congress' declaration, contemporaneously with its adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the rights to personal security and personal liberty include the "constitutional right"--i.e., the right based on the Second Amendment--"to bear arms." Until now, this declaration in the Freedmen's Bureau Act has been completely unknown both to scholars and the courts

    . . .
    Senator Henry Wilson introduced a bill to disband the Southern state militias because they abused freedmen and "were engaged in disarming the negroes." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 914 (Feb. 19, 1866). Because of such complaints, Congress disbanded the Southern state militias. 15 Stat. 487 (Mar. 2, 1867).

    . . .

    A lengthy analysis of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, in Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978) relies on a speech by Representative John Bingham as follows: "Representative Bingham, for example, in discussing § 1 of the bill, explained that he had drafted § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment with the case of Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), especially in mind." 436 U.S. at 686-87. On the same page of the speech where he mentioned Barron, Bingham characterized "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as one of the "limitations upon the power of the States ... made so by the Fourteenth Amendment." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, Appendix 84 (Mar. 31, 1871). As the Court pointed out, "Representative Bingham, the author of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... declared the bill's purpose to be 'the enforcement ... of the Constitution on behalf of every individual citizen of the Republic ... to the extent of the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution." 436 U.S. at 685 n. 45.

    Another authority cited in Monell (id.) was Representative Henry L. Dawes, who stated on the pages referenced by the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment "has secured to [the citizen] the right to keep and bear arms in his defense." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 475-76 (Apr. 5, 1871).

    End of quotes. Should you wish to read the whole thing (which I suggest), it is here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_con ... html#fnb20

    There is more, and much linking "privileges or immunities" to rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but the post is getting long . . .




    Subsequent Supreme Court rulings, however, limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in this regard more severely than its drafters could have contemplated.

    Given the original thrust of the Amendment, as it was intended by its drafters and not as it has been twisted by the Supreme Court, I humbly submit that Congress has the power to prevent state action to violate the Second Amendment.