HR402 introduced in the House: Nationwide reciprocity

[kcbrown]

Yes they can roll the dice..and risk the union.. they always could.

Your reading of Kelo is misleading they ruled that theft by regulation was not a taking.. very self serving no doubt but not a general attack on due process..

We are suffering from death by a thousand cuts in that regard however.

And for the 100 th time.. 0% confidence in the court to do what is right 90 % confidence to do what it needs to inorder to prevent Con Con... or worse.

When the situation on the ground is, due to federal lower courts (for the most part) siding with the states, that the states effectively can "regulate" the right to arms in any way they like (beyond forbidding all possession of all handguns in the home, at any rate), what in the world makes you think an Article V convention will arise from SCOTUS' continued silence on all things 2A? Indeed, what makes you believe the end result of such a convention would not enshrine that very situation? Governments are about the accumulation and use of power, period. State governments are no exception.

 

[...]

Not many details yet on Congress.gov but the title is "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." We'll have to wait until the text of the bill is available to see if a MD resident can get a non-resident permit from another state (FL, for example) for carry in a third state (PA), but I'd bet it won't help MD residents in MD.

35 co-sponsors out of the gate.

 

[redeemed.man]

When the situation on the ground is, due to federal lower courts (for the most part) siding with the states, that the states effectively can "regulate" the right to arms in any way they like (beyond forbidding all possession of all handguns in the home, at any rate), what in the world makes you think an Article V convention will arise from SCOTUS' continued silence on all things 2A? Indeed, what makes you believe the end result of such a convention would not enshrine that very situation? Governments are about the accumulation and use of power, period. State governments are no exception.

I agree. We need to be careful what we wish for.

 

[Kharn]

So that's where all the cheap 7.62x39 went.

 

[Pinecone]

Believe that when I go to check on my house in Colorado, I am allowed to use my Colorado residency while there as well, haven't had a chance to see on that one yet.

https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-6.pdf

Q: What constitutes residency in a State?
The State of residence is the State in which an individual is present; the individual also must have an intention of making a home in that State. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located. If a member of the Armed Forces maintains a home in one State and the member’s permanent duty station is in a nearby State to which he or she commutes each day, then the member has two States of residence and may purchase a firearm in either the State where the duty station is located or the State where the home is maintained. An alien who is legally in the United States is considered to be a resident of a State only if the alien is residing in that State and has resided in that State continuously for a period of at least 90 days prior to the date of sale of the firearm. See also Item 5, “Sales to Aliens in the United States,” in the General Information section of this publication.
[18 U.S.C. 921(b), 922(a) (3), and 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.11]

Q: May a person (who is not an alien) who resides in one State and owns property in another State purchase a handgun in either State?
If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State. However, simply owning property in another State does not qualify the person to purchase a handgun in that State.
[27 CFR 478.11]

Just checking on property in the other state does not mean you are resident for the purpose of buying.

 

[Brooklyn]

:

When the situation on the ground is, due to federal lower courts (for the most part) siding with the states, that the states effectively can "regulate" the right to arms in any way they like (beyond forbidding all possession of all handguns in the home, at any rate), what in the world makes you think an Article V convention will arise from SCOTUS' continued silence on all things 2A? Indeed, what makes you believe the end result of such a convention would not enshrine that very situation? Governments are about the accumulation and use of power, period. State governments are no exception.

Because they all know that nfa could be extended. And because as we have discussed before a con con that produced any material change would require ratification.. it would be a free for all,but it would also be the only peaceful meypthod of succession.

The federal awb anyone? Not to mention FOPA being effectively everxerated for air travel .

Then there are all the other lovely issues of an overbearing fed.

See the lower courts are not backing the states...they are backing the Government... and Americans know that is dangerous.

Also the so calked gun hostile states are,by most real info legislating against the will of the people. On many issues... corruption and apathy have created a tinderbox.

 

[kcbrown]

:

Because they all know that nfa could be extended.

But only if the RKBA-supporting states end up being in the minority, seeing how that would have to get past the senate and the senate is composed of senators who are elected by popular vote in each state, and each state gets equal representation in the senate.

But if RKBA-supporting states become a minority, then it means the majority of states will crave the power to control RKBA. Similarly, states which support RKBA will crave the power to keep RKBA strong. Hence, it follows that the most appealing amendment to the Constitution would be one which completely removes the power of the federal government to control RKBA, and transfers that power to the individual states. Bye bye 14th Amendment application of the 2nd Amendment.

And the end result will be that RKBA will be forever lost in the battleground states, as well as any state which later winds up with an anti-RKBA majority (e.g., Colorado).

And because as we have discussed before a con con that produced any material change would require ratification.. it would be a free for all,but it would also be the only peaceful meypthod of succession.

So what? There are plenty of other incentives for an Article V convention, but no governmental entity ever votes against increases to its own power. So again, what makes you believe that such a convention would yield a result that would end with a reduction of state power??

Do not take my argument for one which says that such a convention shouldn't be tried. If the judicial efforts fail, as I expect they will, an Article V convention will be the next logical step, and the only remaining peaceful one. But there is a massive difference between something being necessary and something being successful. I agree with you on the former. But you appear to assume the latter, when the latter is highly unlikely for the very reasons I outline.

The federal awb anyone? Not to mention FOPA being effectively everxerated for air travel .

If the senate ends up being composed of a majority of senators that are against the RKBA, then on what legitimate basis are you going to be able to claim that the majority of states support RKBA?

See the lower courts are not backing the states...they are backing the Government... and Americans know that is dangerous.

As of now, they are backing the state governments, because it is the state governments which are being sued for violating the 2nd Amendment.

Also the so calked gun hostile states are,by most real info legislating against the will of the people. On many issues... corruption and apathy have created a tinderbox.

Against the will of the people? Really? How do you suppose that is if the legislators who are doing that are there because of the will of the people?


As I recall, you've argued previously that the state governments, and the laws they pass, are a reflection of the will of their people. Indeed, I seem to recall that you've argued that governments in general are a reflection of the will of the people. Now you're arguing the opposite. Well, which is it?

 

[Kharn]

Bill text is available in the OP link, looks identical to last session's bill of 49-state carry with non-resident permit, 50-state with resident.

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 402 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 402

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.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 16, 2015

Mr. Nugent (for himself, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Benishek, Mrs. Black, Mr.
Carter of Texas, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina,
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Gibson, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jolly, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania,
Mr. McClintock, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Rooney of Florida, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Stewart, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Williams, Mr.
Womack, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Nunes)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

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. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or
political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a
person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing,
transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a
valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,
and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a
State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may
possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate
or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of
the person, that--
``(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
``(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State
under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and
limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by
or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of
a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed
handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are
licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not
prohibited by the State from doing so.
``(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a
document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States
Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when
completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a
type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of
individuals.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the
following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
<all>




Congress.gov

It has also gained cosponsors, now there are 50.

 

[Brooklyn]

But only if the RKBA-supporting states end up being in the minority, seeing how that would have to get past the senate and the senate is composed of senators who are elected by popular vote in each state, and each state gets equal representation in the senate.

But if RKBA-supporting states become a minority, then it means the majority of states will crave the power to control RKBA. Similarly, states which support RKBA will crave the power to keep RKBA strong. Hence, it follows that the most appealing amendment to the Constitution would be one which completely removes the power of the federal government to control RKBA, and transfers that power to the individual states. Bye bye 14th Amendment application of the 2nd Amendment.

And the end result will be that RKBA will be forever lost in the battleground states, as well as any state which later winds up with an anti-RKBA majority (e.g., Colorado).


So what? There are plenty of other incentives for an Article V convention, but no governmental entity ever votes against increases to its own power. So again, what makes you believe that such a convention would yield a result that would end with a reduction of state power??

Do not take my argument for one which says that such a convention shouldn't be tried. If the judicial efforts fail, as I expect they will, an Article V convention will be the next logical step, and the only remaining peaceful one. But there is a massive difference between something being necessary and something being successful. I agree with you on the former. But you appear to assume the latter, when the latter is highly unlikely for the very reasons I outline.


If the senate ends up being composed of a majority of senators that are against the RKBA, then on what legitimate basis are you going to be able to claim that the majority of states support RKBA?


As of now, they are backing the state governments, because it is the state governments which are being sued for violating the 2nd Amendment.


Against the will of the people? Really? How do you suppose that is if the legislators who are doing that are there because of the will of the people?


As I recall, you've argued previously that the state governments, and the laws they pass, are a reflection of the will of their people. Indeed, I seem to recall that you've argued that governments in general are a reflection of the will of the people. Now you're arguing the opposite. Well, which is it?

I keep losing my reply.

So I will keep it simple.

Asked and answered at least 6 times.

Locke. Representative gov. Not the same. Not even close.

The con con is coming.. ignore it at your peril.

Social compact theory 10a.

Game on.. btw I don't care if 2a is lost in the states that are becoming tryanies.. like any cancer we must save the body from the cancer..

If needs be expel such states and call it day,

They can deal with the debt to,,

We all know these states may not be salvageable. But they can not be allowed to destroy the rest.

 

[kcbrown]

I keep losing my reply.

So I will keep it simple.

Asked and answered at least 6 times.

Locke. Representative gov. Not the same. Not even close.

The con con is coming.. ignore it at your peril.

Social compact theory 10a.

Game on.. btw I don't care if 2a is lost in the states that are becoming tryanies.. like any cancer we must save the body from the cancer..

If needs be expel such states and call it day,

They can deal with the debt to,,

We all know these states may not be salvageable. But they can not be allowed to destroy the rest.

I think we're talking past each other.

You're talking about what events are necessary for liberty to be restored, something I agree with.

I'm talking about what to expect if those necessary events do in fact happen.

Those things that are necessary are almost certainly not going to be sufficient. You can't change human nature (at least, not without genetic manipulation), which is to simultaneously desire to control and to be controlled. The founders of this country tried, and failed. What you see before you now is that failure.

It is not an accident that tyranny is the historical norm.


We must fight against tyranny if it is liberty that we love. But that doesn't mean we have to cling to an unrealistic view of what is likely to happen in that fight.

My purpose here is to bring reality. If you see the train coming, you have a chance of getting out of its way. If you don't see it coming, then you have no such chance at all. My purpose is to make people people see the train that is coming towards them. As applied here, if people believe they will win, they will not plan for the contingency of losing, because they will believe such planning to be unnecessary.

 

[Kharn]

55 co-sponsors.

 

[Cyndi59]

How many co-sponcers are needed 60..??

 

[Brooklyn]

I think we're talking past each other.

You're talking about what events are necessary for liberty to be restored, something I agree with.

I'm talking about what to expect if those necessary events do in fact happen.

Those things that are necessary are almost certainly not going to be sufficient. You can't change human nature (at least, not without genetic manipulation), which is to simultaneously desire to control and to be controlled. The founders of this country tried, and failed. What you see before you now is that failure.

It is not an accident that tyranny is the historical norm.


We must fight against tyranny if it is liberty that we love. But that doesn't mean we have to cling to an unrealistic view of what is likely to happen in that fight.

My purpose here is to bring reality. If you see the train coming, you have a chance of getting out of its way. If you don't see it coming, then you have no such chance at all. My purpose is to make people people see the train that is coming towards them. As applied here, if people believe they will win, they will not plan for the contingency of losing, because they will believe such planning to be unnecessary.

Until you tell me what that plan is,you are not planing either

A con con failure leads to a detailed plan.

Most here would skip the con con. Meanwhile they aleady know what happen if con con fails. Yet they would skip it,if as you say its doomed. Think about the impact to liberty if someone jumps the gun,and you may understand why I say what I do.


You are on a forum of people than plan and think strategically... they know what to do if con con fails..

And many are even more certain it will fail than you. Permature ignition must not happen or,and I rarely say this....defeat is guaranteed.

 

[kcbrown]

Until you tell me what that plan is,you are not planing either

I do not know of a plan that has a reasonable chance of success against what we face. But knowledge of what to expect makes it possible for people far brighter than myself to come up with one. They have to first believe such to be necessary.

A con con failure leads to a detailed plan.

Most here would skip the con con. Meanwhile they aleady know what happen if con con fails. Yet they would skip it,if as you say its doomed. Think about the impact to liberty if someone jumps the gun,and you may understand why I say what I do.

I would not skip an Article V convention, precisely because all peaceful options have to be tried first. There is far too much to lose beyond that, and perceptions may be markedly different in the aftermath of such a failure than in the precursor to the convention.

You are on a forum of people than plan and think strategically... they know what to do if con con fails..

Some might. I, frankly, don't. My perception is that only government insiders have any chance of having a substantial effect on the outcome if the convention fails. Ordinary citizens with ordinary arms haven't a chance because of the technological and force of arms disparity they would be up against in the absence of the government insiders I speak of.

And many are even more certain it will fail than you. Permature ignition must not happen or,and I rarely say this....defeat is guaranteed.

Yes, I agree. However, I believe you presume far too much with respect to the chances of success of the fallback plan I believe you speak of. It presumes that many of those in government, the very entity which has as its self-appointed purpose the control of the citizenry (for to govern is to control, is it not?), will rise up in opposition to the very entity they willingly belong to, the very entity they know is automatically on the opposite side of liberty.

I have no doubt there will be some who qualify in that regard. I'm deeply skeptical they are sufficient in number, much less sufficient in number and rank, to yield any reasonable probability of success.


I also believe you presume far too much with respect to perceptions in the aftermath of a failed Article V convention. It will have failed to restore liberty to the citizenry. But that means nothing if that is not the reason the citizenry believes the convention to be occurring in the first place. If the convention is occurring because, for instance, the citizenry believes that the federal government has too much power over the states, then the convention will most certainly yield results similar to what I predict and post-convention perceptions will be that it has succeeded in its purpose. Liberty will still be dead, as the only thing that will have changed is who has control over the citizenry.


Again, it's not an accident that tyranny is the historical norm. I have every reason to believe we are going up against our own genetic programming here. We must try, but it is unrealistic to expect to succeed against that.

 

[press1280]

How many co-sponcers are needed 60..??

Co-sponsors doesn't really matter. You're thinking of 60 votes in the Senate which are needed for passage.

 

[Kharn]

How many co-sponcers are needed 60..??

None, a bill can be passed with only a sponsor to submit it. Being a cosponsor is basically a claim to fame, saying that they heralded it through the process.

Last session's bill had 184 cosponsors, but it never left the Judiciary Committee.

 

[Brooklyn]

I do not know of a plan that has a reasonable chance of success against what we face. But knowledge of what to expect makes it possible for people far brighter than myself to come up with one. They have to first believe such to be necessary.


I would not skip an Article V convention, precisely because all peaceful options have to be tried first. There is far too much to lose beyond that, and perceptions may be markedly different in the aftermath of such a failure than in the precursor to the convention.


Some might. I, frankly, don't. My perception is that only government insiders have any chance of having a substantial effect on the outcome if the convention fails. Ordinary citizens with ordinary arms haven't a chance because of the technological and force of arms disparity they would be up against in the absence of the government insiders I speak of.


Yes, I agree. However, I believe you presume far too much with respect to the chances of success of the fallback plan I believe you speak of. It presumes that many of those in government, the very entity which has as its self-appointed purpose the control of the citizenry (for to govern is to control, is it not?), will rise up in opposition to the very entity they willingly belong to, the very entity they know is automatically on the opposite side of liberty.

I have no doubt there will be some who qualify in that regard. I'm deeply skeptical they are sufficient in number, much less sufficient in number and rank, to yield any reasonable probability of success.


I also believe you presume far too much with respect to perceptions in the aftermath of a failed Article V convention. It will have failed to restore liberty to the citizenry. But that means nothing if that is not the reason the citizenry believes the convention to be occurring in the first place. If the convention is occurring because, for instance, the citizenry believes that the federal government has too much power over the states, then the convention will most certainly yield results similar to what I predict and post-convention perceptions will be that it has succeeded in its purpose. Liberty will still be dead, as the only thing that will have changed is who has control over the citizenry.


Again, it's not an accident that tyranny is the historical norm. I have every reason to believe we are going up against our own genetic programming here. We must try, but it is unrealistic to expect to succeed against that.

Locke has a differing view.

Then ask was the historical norm tyranny? Or just monarchy? Did the average person have much to fear from the power of the state,as compared to today?
How many licenses and building permits? How many strict liability crimes?

Liberty could actually increase under such tyranny..

For most..
It coming regardless the $$ will not hold.

 

[Shift]

Fun to think about but the King will never go for it

 

[swinokur]

If it was attached to something he very much wants, it could happen.

Look at National Park carry. Attached to the credit card act he sought.

 

[Schipperke]

Too bad all the lead doesn't come showering down breaking their windshelds and cracking thier skulls. Bunch of idiots..