S. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012

[J_Wales]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not understand the excitement over a "national" reciprocity law.

When one looks around, Indiana has a long way to go towards Constitutional Carry. Yet it is closer to Constitutional Carry than are most States.

Are we to actually believe that a "national" law would be towards the Constitutional Carry end of the spectrum? Given that so few States actually respect the Second Amendment as written, is it not more likely that Indiana would be expected to further restrict rights in order to be part of a "national" law?

Further, if a "national" reciprocity law were to be adopted, is it not reasonable to expect that the "national" government would use it to invoke greater privy to the matter?

Would we not be well advised to not cede yet another right to the central government?

 

[J_Wales]

As a point of reference, it might be helpful for folks to compare the text of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to Article I Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.


Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Indiana Constitution - Article 1


Note the Constitution of the State of Indiana does not even mention militia on this topic. The militia reference in the Second Amendment is one that anti individual rights folks have harped on for years in effort to undermine individual natural rights.

In Indiana it is not even up for debate. Do we really expect individual liberty to fare better under national law?

Do we recall the purpose of having member States to a central government?

 

[MrSmitty]

I have been thinking for a while, that I wish I had the monetary, and legal resources to go from state to state carrying a gun, and a copy of the 2nd amendment, as my "license/permit, to see about pushing the states to recognize that we don't need their "permission" to be able to legally carry a gun. We have it in the Constitution! I'd love to be a millionaire gun owner, and use my money for fighting real crime......stupid gun laws!!

 

[MikeDVB]

It would be nice, imho, if there was a law that made reciprocity required. If not for full reciprocity - it would be nice if there was a type of national permit - perhaps with some required training to obtain it.

I was looking at reciprocity today and thankfully all of the states I tend to visit/go through (Kentucky and Tennessee) currently recognize Indiana permits. One thing that worries me though, is if the laws in these individual states change and my research is wrong or not 100% up to date. A federal law and/or permit would help protect otherwise law-abiding citizens from prosecution.

 

[NIFT]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not understand the excitement over a "national" reciprocity law.

When one looks around, Indiana has a long way to go towards Constitutional Carry. Yet it is closer to Constitutional Carry than are most States.

Are we to actually believe that a "national" law would be towards the Constitutional Carry end of the spectrum? Given that so few States actually respect the Second Amendment as written, is it not more likely that Indiana would be expected to further restrict rights in order to be part of a "national" law?

Further, if a "national" reciprocity law were to be adopted, is it not reasonable to expect that the "national" government would use it to invoke greater privy to the matter?

Would we not be well advised to not cede yet another right to the central government?

Fully agree.

Initially, I was in favor of a national recognition/reciprocity law but no longer.

The last thing we need to do is abdicate more power to the federal government, which is guaranteed to corrupt that power to use against those it was, originally, intended to benefit.

"Constitutional" carry, at the state level, will be a messier and more time consuming process, but it is worth the price to keep the federal government from yet another tool of control. Lord knows, the feds have way too much, already.

Gun-carry licenses constitutionally unneeded | The Journal Gazette

 

[NIFT]

It would be nice, imho, if there was a law that made reciprocity required. If not for full reciprocity - it would be nice if there was a type of national permit - perhaps with some required training to obtain it.

I was looking at reciprocity today and thankfully all of the states I tend to visit/go through (Kentucky and Tennessee) currently recognize Indiana permits. One thing that worries me though, is if the laws in these individual states change and my research is wrong or not 100% up to date. A federal law and/or permit would help protect otherwise law-abiding citizens from prosecution.

Disagree strongly! Keep the feds out of it!

Regarding the training issue: I am fully in favor of firearms' training but not mandatory training to be allowed to get a governmental permit for something that is a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege.

 

[MikeDVB]

Disagree strongly! Keep the feds out of it!

I'm speaking the lesser of two evils (i.e. something consistent state to state). I would rather have a national law/guidelines and not have to worry about outdated research and/or going to jail for unknowingly violating a gun carry law when I'm an otherwise law-abiding citizen who made a simple mistake. Obviously ignorance is not a defense, but I'm all for making at least carry/conceal laws more consistent. You're welcome to disagree .

Regarding the training issue: I am fully in favor of firearms' training but not mandatory training to be allowed to get a governmental permit for something that is a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege.

I can see both arguments - to be honest - I would think most criminals using firearms are not going to go through the trouble to obtain training and a permit so I do not believe it would help with crime rates. The only reason I really say that some sort of training could be a consideration is due to the number of idiots out there that can/will do things such as muzzle sweeping, not treating a firearm as loaded at all times, etc... I'm not talking some major course where shooting targets well is required - but a basic safety type of certification (similar to say, a driving test).

Just my personal thoughts on it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

MikeDVB:
First, to !

What Bob is saying, as I see it, is that we don't have to speak of the lesser of evils, considering that accepting one of them is still accepting evil. It's like building a house. Sure, you can go with your local builder who is cranking out a house every three months or so, complete with Lowest Bidder windows, plumbing, and flooring in a subdivision, on a 1/4 acre with an HOA and you'll have a house that will need constant attention to every small detail and problem that you'll need to fix to keep small rather than overwhelming.

Conversely, you can find a plot of land you like, hire a builder, meet with him, and choose what you want, how you want it, and, though you'll spend more time at the beginning and maybe more money, too, you'll come out of it with a well-built home you love and enjoy that will also need occasional attention, but without the regular problems the other will have.

So it is with RKBA issues. Going the "federal law" route is good if we need something right now... It's the fast, easy route, fraught with small problems that will become big problems without a whole lot of attention. Going the more direct route of going to each state directly and asking them to voluntarily pass Constitutional carry is the better solution.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MikeDVB]

Now that makes more sense to me Bill and I didn't quite see it that way prior. Thank you.

 

[CarmelHP]

Text is Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

112th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2188 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 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 13, 2012

Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 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 2012'.

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) Definitions- In this section--

• • `(1) the term `eligible individual' means an individual who is not prohibited under Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and

• • `(2) 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 identifying individuals.

• `(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and except as provided in subsection (c), an eligible individual may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun 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 eligible individual, 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.

• `(c) Conditions and Limitations-

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- An eligible individual carrying a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, except as to eligibility to carry a concealed handgun, that apply to residents of the State or political subdivision who--

• • • `(A) have a license or permit issued by the State or political subdivision to carry a concealed handgun; or

• • • `(B) if the State does not issue licenses or permits described in subparagraph (A), are not prohibited by the State from carrying a concealed handgun.

• • `(2) IDENTIFICATION; LICENSE OR PERMIT- An eligible individual who is carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall carry--

• • • `(A) a valid identification document containing a photograph of the individual; and

• • • `(B) a valid license or permit that--

• • • • `(i) is issued under the law of a State; and

• • • • `(ii) permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm.'.

• (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 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 enactment of this Act.

 

[JettaKnight]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not understand the excitement over a "national" reciprocity law.

Perhaps you don't travel as much as the rest of us.

When one looks around, Indiana has a long way to go towards Constitutional Carry. Yet it is closer to Constitutional Carry than are most States.

Are we to actually believe that a "national" law would be towards the Constitutional Carry end of the spectrum? Given that so few States actually respect the Second Amendment as written, is it not more likely that Indiana would be expected to further restrict rights in order to be part of a "national" law?

No. There's nothing here causing a state to be more restrictive. This is about Constitutional Carry - it's about me being allow to enjoy the freedoms of a Ohioan without a piece of paper from Utah/Florida/Arizona.

Further, if a "national" reciprocity law were to be adopted, is it not reasonable to expect that the "national" government would use it to invoke greater privy to the matter?

No. Stop being paranoid.

Would we not be well advised to not cede yet another right to the central government?

No one is ceding anything. The States still have the power to issue licenses and set laws. You can argue against this bill on a State's rights perspective, but not from individual liberties.

 

[eldirector]

Man, I wish they would remove the word "concealed". Only 8 states restrict open carry for their residents (42 states "allow" it). The whole point of this legislation is to allow non-residence the same protection as residents. I have no major issue concealing when visiting say, Texas (follow their local laws), but should not be required to conceal in an otherwise OC-friendly state.

And yes, I realize the bill says "hall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State", but it prefaces the whole thing with "concealed".

As much as I like the general idea, I'd still prefer good old state-to-state reciprocity and keep the Feds out of it.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not understand the excitement over a "national" reciprocity law.

When one looks around, Indiana has a long way to go towards Constitutional Carry. Yet it is closer to Constitutional Carry than are most States.

Are we to actually believe that a "national" law would be towards the Constitutional Carry end of the spectrum? Given that so few States actually respect the Second Amendment as written, is it not more likely that Indiana would be expected to further restrict rights in order to be part of a "national" law?

Further, if a "national" reciprocity law were to be adopted, is it not reasonable to expect that the "national" government would use it to invoke greater privy to the matter?

Would we not be well advised to not cede yet another right to the central government?

Wales may be on to something here... Wouldn't a national law give the Feds a toehold into gun laws across state boundaries and potentially give them an easier path to future gun restrictions?

Something stinks here...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now that makes more sense to me Bill and I didn't quite see it that way prior. Thank you.

My pleasure to help!

Perhaps you don't travel as much as the rest of us.


No. There's nothing here causing a state to be more restrictive. This is about Constitutional Carry - it's about me being allow to enjoy the freedoms of a Ohioan without a piece of paper from Utah/Florida/Arizona.


No. Stop being paranoid.


No one is ceding anything. The States still have the power to issue licenses and set laws. You can argue against this bill on a State's rights perspective, but not from individual liberties.

I didn't quote his post, but my thanks and rep added to CarmelHP for posting the text of the bill.

JettaKnight:
It has nothing to do with whether or not he travels any at all. He disagrees with giving the FedGov any more power than they already have. I tend to agree. There is no Constitutional authority (other than that "the firearms have moved in interstate commerce") for the FedGov to address this issue at all.

You're correct that there is nothing *here* to require a state to be more restrictive. The concern is what's not here... much as a magician makes big, showy movements with his right hand to distract you from what his left hand is doing. Consider that some states require a photo, possibly biometrics, etc. before they will allow a citizen to exercise a right with which he was born.

Now that I've actually read the bill being proposed, I stand to oppose it. Yes, you read that right. I stand to oppose S 2188, just as, on re-reading it, I oppose HR 822. Both require documents from one place prior to *allowing* citizens to carry firearms away from their home states and both require concealment. Suppose I choose to OC? Suppose I'm from VT and don't have a document? You (JettaKnight) said you want the rights of an Ohioan without a paper from Utah. That's fine. I want the rights of a Vermonter. No, strike that. I want the rights of a human being. If I choose to go armed, I don't want to have to go beg permission to be allowed to exercise them because, even with Shall Issue, it's quite easy to change the definition in the law to make refusing you (or anyone) permission an easy task:

IC 35-47-1-7 ##############(as it could be)
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:

(1) does not have a[STRIKE] conviction[/STRIKE]n arrest for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a[STRIKE] conviction[/STRIKE]n arrest for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a[STRIKE] conviction[/STRIKE]n arrest for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not [STRIKE]have documented evidencewhich would [/STRIKE]give rise to a reasonable belief on the part of the officer to whom the person makes application for a Licence To Carry Handgun that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
​

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;
(B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.
​

(14) is not otherwise prohibited by action of a federal agency.
​

As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34; P.L.127-2011, SEC.3.
([STRIKE]strikeouts[/STRIKE] and bolds added to show a gun-banner's wet dream)

Paranoid? Go back and watch Charlie Rangel swing the gavel when the Hughes Amendment was added to FOPA in 1986. Listen to the Indiana Senate arguments in 2008 when "Republican" Tom Wyss told the other senators that if a bill passed allowing guns to be carried (other than by police, legislators, and judges) in the State House, he would never have another young person page for him there... In essence, an ultimatum, a blackmail. Thankfully, Mr. Wyss seems to be the only solidly anti-gun rights "Republican" in the Senate today, however the other side is always looking to increase their numbers, and there are a few whose support for gun rights changes with the wind. It is not paranoia to recognize the facts. We had some good bills this last session that never even got heard, and the ones that did got ignored and died in committee in both houses.

To allow or even to ask the FedGov to step in and force the states to recognize these licenses is, as Kirk often says, the same today as it was 50 and 60 years ago, when the Civil Rights Act was passed... Look at what happened then: Hiring quotas, the idea of "reverse discrimination" (which is nothing more than discrimination applied to other people), race riots, a sense of entitlement on the parts of the formerly-oppressed...
You've heard the story of King Midas, who turned anything he touched to gold; the FedGov has something similar, that could be called the "Obama Touch": Everything they touch turns to .

We don't need the federal government to do most things. We're quite a self-sufficient people at heart, but the more we allow them to do for us, the less so we become.

I'm not a big fan of J_Wales' line of thinking as he often expresses it. Many times, I think he's over the top and his rhetoric is designed to incite violence and rebellion, however I cannot deny that his views on the growth of the FedGov are on-point and his opposition to this bill is likewise. We don't have to approach something the same way to be in agreement, nor do we have to agree on everything or even most things. I do not at all support what I said above I think he wants to see happen, but I agree that having the FedGov address this issue is like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
No. There's nothing here causing a state to be more restrictive. This is about Constitutional Carry - it's about me being allow to enjoy the freedoms of a Ohioan without a piece of paper from Utah/Florida/Arizona.....

I meant to address this in the above and forgot to do so in full. This is not in the slightest way about Constitutional Carry. Carry reciprocity, yes, but not Constitutional Carry. Of note, we have no state that has true Constitutional Carry, even VT, in part because of federal regulations.

True Constitutional Carry does not address the method in which you carry, it simply says that any person* who is free and chooses to go armed may do so for lawful purposes. That is, one cannot go armed for the purpose of murder, robbery, assault or rape and have this be unchallenged. (*children, of course, are subject to their parents' authority, but not to legal sanction if they are allowed by those parents to be armed)

True Constitutional Carry does not require a permission slip from any government, nor is it restricted by what building you choose to enter. Private property rights are still sacrosanct, but so is your right to take your business elsewhere.

Some here roll their eyes at the writings of L. Neil Smith, but I read an idea he proposed that made much sense to me:

Big Head Press - Thoughtful Stories, Graphic Novels Online And In Print - The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel, by L. Neil Smith and Scott Bieser

Clarissa, the character speaking, explains it well, almost exactly as the paperback book version of the book I have has her doing.

The other point I was going to address is perhaps a misread on my part, so if so, I apologize in advance, but you said that this bill is "...about me being allow to..." This is part of the problem. It's not at all about you. It's about all of us. It's about limiting the power of the FedGov to intrude on our lives, because without a doubt, if they gain a foothold into gun laws on the state level, they WILL attempt to gain a second, then a handhold or two, and before you know it, there will be a "National Carry License".... not that anyone but the favored and the wealthy will have one, of course.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JettaKnight]

First, Bill, that's a outstanding articulation of your opinions. You, sir, rock.

I would argue that the bill take in to consideration those states with C.C. such that the mere proof of citizenship (ID card / driver's license) serve as a 'permit' for carry. Otherwise, why not put a little handgun icon on all driver's licenses from Vermont etc.?

As for allowing the FedGov inroads into ownership - Carrying, is about the only thing that the FedGov has been silent about. I could see this changing if a bunch of Hoosiers start packing heat in NYC, NJ, CA. You can bet Lautenberg et al would start trying to institute a federal control. But, trying and doing are two separate things.

 

[Bill of Rights]

First, Bill, that's a outstanding articulation of your opinions. You, sir, rock.

I would argue that the bill take in to consideration those states with C.C. such that the mere proof of citizenship (ID card / driver's license) serve as a 'permit' for carry. Otherwise, why not put a little handgun icon on all driver's licenses from Vermont etc.?

As for allowing the FedGov inroads into ownership - Carrying, is about the only thing that the FedGov has been silent about. I could see this changing if a bunch of Hoosiers start packing heat in NYC, NJ, CA. You can bet Lautenberg et al would start trying to institute a federal control. But, trying and doing are two separate things.

Thank you for the compliments.

Again, Constitutional carry does not depend on citizenship. Constitutional Carry means you can carry, period. VT doesn't have it, but they have as close to it as anyone ever has; they've never had a state-level oversight of that right, nor should they, nor should any of the other 49. I know some here disagree with me on this, but the RKBA is one of those inalienable rights to which we are all party by virtue of birth and ALL people, American and otherwise, male and female, adult and child, Black, White, Hispanic, Oriental, or Pink Polka Dotted are entitled to exercise that right. Our government does not recognize the RKBA as the Founders intended it to be recognized, however Vermont need not add a handgun icon to their DL. The right is independent of government. (I know, it's a tough paradigm to break... We are SO used to having gov't address things ("there oughta be a law!"), it's hard to unlearn the idea.)

Ugh. "packing heat"... I despise that expression!! Nonetheless, while you're probably right that some would throw up their hands and scream about the sky falling, , and while it would be unseemly to wish a similar fate befall those who do so as that of Chicken Little, I think that few other things would change their minds. We can only hope there are enough right-minded people to counter them (and in this context, "right" has all three meanings: Correct, the opposite of "privilege", and "not Left".)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Destro]

can somebody explain where the constutional authority a law like this comes from? Not talking 2A here

 

[Bill of Rights]

can somebody explain where the constutional authority a law like this comes from? Not talking 2A here

Full Faith and Credit, perhaps? You're right, though, it's not the 2A. For it to be that, a bill like this would have to abolish state-level prohibitions. "Shall not be infringed, together with the 10A, carries an implied, "by any gov't at any level".

What a pity government employees of the people (or perhaps a majority of our forebears) couldn't or didn't read that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

Full Faith and Credit, perhaps? You're right, though, it's not the 2A. For it to be that, a bill like this would have to abolish state-level prohibitions. "Shall not be infringed, together with the 10A, carries an implied, "by any gov't at any level".

What a pity government employees of the people (or perhaps a majority of our forebears) couldn't or didn't read that.

Blessings,
Bill

Nothing to do with "full faith and credit." This is an actual honest-to-god interstate commerce issue, making laws uniform between states for travelers. One of the few instances when the commerce clause actually applies.