National Right to Carry Endorsed by 22 State AG's, except Indiana

[Fedempl]

One has to wonder why our AG was not on board. Was he not asked or what?

http://nraila.org/media/7686066/final_hr_822.pdf

 

[BlueEagle]

Could be an issue about our requirements not being up to par with most other states. It'll create technical difficulties trying to standardize things when we issue permits 3 years earlier, and don't require training.

I have no inside knowledge of why, that's just my speculation. He may be trying to avoid the extra effort and changes that would be required to bring us "up to code" with the rest of the country in order to get this to work. *shrug* I happen to like Indiana's system, but we'll see how it goes. I would certainly enjoy national reciprocity, but I have to wonder how Indiana's currently very lenient system will fare.

 

[eldirector]

Maybe he doesn't want to cede control to the Federal government? Indiana already accepts everyone else, so no need for the Feds to force us to.

 

[BlueEagle]

Maybe he doesn't want to cede control to the Federal government? Indiana already accepts everyone else, so no need for the Feds to force us to.

This could be part of it.

 

[hopper68]

Too many people making money off the Utah and other permits to ever pass. How much money does Utah get from out of state permit sales?
And if a Utah class comes near that I can make, I will gladly spend the money to get a few more states that I actually go to.

 

[Stschil]

Maybe he doesn't want to cede control to the Federal government? Indiana already accepts everyone else, so no need for the Feds to force us to.

I agree. National Reciprocity, As it is being looked at now, is just more Fed Control over the States. I maintain it is NOT good legislation and personally don't want to see it passed in its present wording. The gun grabber states will want all sorts of requirements like mandatory training, duty to inform, duty to retreat, no firearms signs having force of law, lots and lots of Gun Free Zones identified and added into the language before they would even sign off on it. If they got all this, we will ALL be restricted to the point that carrying anywhere will require major foethought and planning.

 

[straid]

Whether it's good or bad, this statement clearly contradicts the mantra of those that would squash the rights of lawful citizens to carry:

While some have suggested this legislation would endanger public safety, our experience suggests the opposite. Individuals with concealed carry permits from our states have proven to be more law-abiding than non-licensees, and in many instances have been able to defend themselves and others effectively from criminal attack.

 

[windellmc]

There is already national reciprocity on the books. It is called the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the states and federal government have been trampling it for over 100 years.

 

[Excalibur]

I think it is highly recommended to have training but for a state to have it being a requirement before owning a gun is too demanding. In Indiana, if you pass the driver test, you get your license to drive but you don't actually have to go to a class and pay for the class to learn how to drive when you can do it on your own time and be taught by experienced drivers.

Same with guns and I like to always compare guns to cars, yes you should learn how to use a gun, but a required class that you need to pay X amount of money for might not work for everyone

 

[jmartin72]

There is already national reciprocity on the books. It is called the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the states and federal government have been trampling it for over 100 years.

+1

 

[ryknoll3]

I agree. National Reciprocity, As it is being looked at now, is just more Fed Control over the States. I maintain it is NOT good legislation and personally don't want to see it passed in its present wording. The gun grabber states will want all sorts of requirements like mandatory training, duty to inform, duty to retreat, no firearms signs having force of law, lots and lots of Gun Free Zones identified and added into the language before they would even sign off on it. If they got all this, we will ALL be restricted to the point that carrying anywhere will require major foethought and planning.

I'm not really interested in a national reciprocity bill, but what about the way this one is currently worded are you against? It basically says, if your state issues permits, you have to recognize any other states' permits. The permittee would still have to carry according to the laws of the state he's in, but it doesn't add any additional requirements to the states as far as what they can/can't allow with their CCW rules.

Other than a bill that says, "We recogize the 2A as the only gun 'law' we need, and all others are null and void." how could a national reciprocity bill be any better?

 

[Stschil]

I'm not really interested in a national reciprocity bill, but what about the way this one is currently worded are you against? It basically says, if your state issues permits, you have to recognize any other states' permits. The permittee would still have to carry according to the laws of the state he's in, but it doesn't add any additional requirements to the states as far as what they can/can't allow with their CCW rules.

Other than a bill that says, "We recogize the 2A as the only gun 'law' we need, and all others are null and void." how could a national reciprocity bill be any better?
I suspect the States that have grudgingly begun to allow carry but with major restrictions and/or requirements would suddenly make carry nearly impossible for both residents and visitors.

*Busted* I meant to say that it wouldn't survive as worded for the items I listed.

Even if it did survive and pass as is, I am still not a supporter because the Fed Govt has no business telling the States what to do. I know, it happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[jgreiner]

There is already national reciprocity on the books. It is called the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the states and federal government have been trampling it for over 100 years.

+1. Rep inbound. You nailed it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Could be an issue about our requirements not being up to par with most other states. It'll create technical difficulties trying to standardize things when we issue permits 3 years earlier, and don't require training.

I have no inside knowledge of why, that's just my speculation. He may be trying to avoid the extra effort and changes that would be required to bring us "up to code" with the rest of the country in order to get this to work. *shrug* I happen to like Indiana's system, but we'll see how it goes. I would certainly enjoy national reciprocity, but I have to wonder how Indiana's currently very lenient system will fare.

Have you read the bill (HR 822)?

There's nothing about any state changing their permit/license process at all. All it states is that if a state has CC/LTCH/permits/etc. then they must accept all other states' permits/licenses.

This bill is a huge boon to the citizens in Indiana. It doesn't change Indiana law at all since we already accept other states.

 

[JettaKnight]

There is already national reciprocity on the books. It is called the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the states and federal government have been trampling it for over 100 years.

This also covers interstate transit with firerms, too, right?

Well, if we didn't have a law explicitly covering interstate transit a lot more INGO'ers would be in NJ and Chicago jails right now.

Sorry, but theory =/= practice. While I agree with you, states like Ohio don't.

 

[HICKMAN]

Maybe he doesn't want to cede control to the Federal government? Indiana already accepts everyone else, so no need for the Feds to force us to.

amen, this Federal carry is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.


I personally don't believe we have the right to trample on other State's Rights.

If their citizens believe they need 8 hours of training, so be it.

 

[JettaKnight]

amen, this Federal carry is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

It's not federal carry. There's no federal licensing, no federal database, no federal rules, no training, no mandate on state OC/CC laws, etc. There is only one clause to the bill - all states must honor other state's licenses. We already do this for driver's license. There's no federal driver's license and there never will be.

The only arguments against this comes from paranoia about federal laws (i.e. "this opens the door") and States right-wingers.

I personally don't believe we have the right to trample on other State's Rights.

This is the only rational argument against HR 822.

If their citizens believe they need 8 hours of training, so be it.

Where does all this talk of training come from? It's not in HR822. Perhaps you're referring to the requirement to obtain a Ohio Permit. The problem is that this requirement is being imposed upon citizens from other states that are visiting Ohio. This is what I find to be wrong.

And why do you think it is OK if Ohio has training requirement? Doesn't this violate the 2A in your mind? You can't carry in Ohio despite what you think the 2A guarantees. Wouldn't you like a law that explicitly enumerates this one thing? I know I would! Utah, however, stands to loose a lot of money from Hoosiers.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Have you read the bill (HR 822)?

There's nothing about any state changing their permit/license process at all. All it states is that if a state has CC/LTCH/permits/etc. then they must accept all other states' permits/licenses.

Yes I have and it does state a bit more than that.
Well there is a thing in it that may effect how they are issued.

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES’ CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

• (a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
  • (1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
    (2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
    (3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
  (b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

• If the Comp General study isn't "favorable" I could see out of state licenses becoming very hard for people in some states to get. IL for one. And perhaps NY, NJ, CA, HI etc. I could see them stating that since the licenses/permits are "interstate commerce" that they have the legal authority to regulate them. And make states follow the rules of the state the person lives in. Do you think the states that issue non-resident are going to want to attempt to know and follow the laws of the 49 other states?

It's not federal carry. There's no federal licensing, no federal database, no federal rules, no training, no mandate on state OC/CC laws, etc. There is only one clause to the bill - all states must honor other state's licenses. We already do this for driver's license. There's no federal driver's license and there never will be.

I could see a federal database showing very easily after this part.

SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

• (a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.
  (b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

  I could see them deciding it is too hard for officers to verify that a persons license/permit is legit. And to make it easier that all states have to give up the lists to the Feds can "centralize" them to make it "uniform" and easier to verify.

 

[LocustsOfSteel]

The thing that really concerns me about this federal carry thing, is that it keeps saying "concealed carry"...
Crooks and pansie's carry concealed, now and then i do in certain circumstances, but i do my best to be open about it.

The general public, LEO's, politicians and criminals at large need to accept the idea of law abiding citizens keeping and BEARING arms in there day to day activities in order for our nation to retain this right in the long run.

My is that the fed is pulling another underhanded move in the wrong direction by using sly wording techniques, the wording needs to change before this $#!+ passes... Even then it creates problems with state rights, and has the ability in the long term, through amendments to the bill, to force our state and others to abide by P.R.C. carry laws.

 

[HICKMAN]

provide a means to get something from the GOV, you provide a means to take it away