The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 (H.R. 2959) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah). The bill would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid, concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154 . . .
H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws allowing for the carrying of firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits.
This is not a new or untested concept. Since 2004, certain active and retired law enforcement officers have been authorized to carry concealed firearms throughout the United States based on identification issued by the agencies that employ or formerly employed them. Most states that issue carry permits or licenses already have statutes that grant reciprocity or recognition to non-resident licenses or permits under various circumstances. Meanwhile, Right-to-Carry Reciprocity legislation has been introduced in Congress since 1995.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” throughout U.S. history, and that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state and local laws.
• The Seventh and Ninth Circuits, among other courts, have affirmed that the individual right protected by the Second Amendment includes the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense. In the 2012 case of Shepard v. Madigan, authored by Judge Richard Posner, the court ruled that the “confrontations” of which the Supreme Court wrote in Heller “are not limited to the home.” The court accordingly held, “A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.” The Ninth Circuit similarly held in the 2014 case ofPeruta v. San Diego County that Second Amendment protects the right of responsible, law-abiding persons to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
• Every state has a concealed-carry firearm permit law. Forty-two states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, readily issue concealed carry permits or licenses. Thirty-nine have “shall issue” laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to qualified applicants. Four states do not require a license or permit for the lawful carrying of concealed firearms. Only the District of Columbia prohibits entirely the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense.
• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, the state that has issued the most concealed firearm carry permits—due to its large population and the relatively early date of its Right-to-Carry law—only about 0.01 percent of permits issued have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Other states that keep such statistics have had similar experiences.
• Violent crime rates have decreased, as the number of Right-to-Carry states has increased. The nation’s violent crime rate hit an all-time high in 1991, when only 17 states, accounting for 25 percent of the nation’s population, had Right-to-Carry laws. Since then, the number of states in which carry permits are readily available has risen to 42, accounting for 74 percent of the population, and the nation’s violent crime rate has fallen to a 42-year low. (Data: FBI.)
• The right of self-defense has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.” The laws of all states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has recognized that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” Beard v. United States (1895). Congress affirmed the right to own guns for protective purposes in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”
• Concealed carry has proven to be sound public policy in the United States. H.R. 2959 recognizes both the increased popularity of concealed carry and the increased mobility of the U.S. population. The current patchwork of state and local laws and reciprocity arrangements can prove daunting and confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. People carrying in good faith and strictly for defensive purposes have been arrested and subjected to prosecution for inadvertent violations, sometimes as a result of voluntarily disclosing their possession of firearms to law enforcement officers. H.R. 2959 allows law-abiding Americans to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment with confidence and peace of mind, while still allowing states to enforce their own standards of conduct and restricted places of carry for those in possession of firearms.
Given how many former CT gun companies are in that banner picture I am not sure if I should cry or laugh out loud like a hysterical mad man or both.
DOOOOOOOOO EEEEEEEEEEET
Not a snowball’s chance in hell, but one can hope.
Every law that we hate ed tried over and over, I’m sure. Do it, let it fail. Then do it again, and again.
As commented above, this is a purely cynical political calculation by all parties in an election year.
As much as I would prefer that my Washington “Get out of jail free” card would work in every state in America, I have to repeat that if we give our support to this attempted legislation we are once again agreeing that the government, federal and state, does in fact have the authority to infringe on the Second Amendment. This should NEVER be our default position.
Stop agreeing that they can infringe just a little bit and demand Constitutional Carry and the repeal of all federal and state anti-2A legislation.
Ben Franklin said that a reputation, like a china plate, once cracked is never successfully mended. We may be seeing exactly that same point if we stand by and allow one crack after another in the “…shall not be infringed.” language with the result that the meaning of the amendment may never be successfully mended.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The idea behind this isn’t that we believe that such infringements, even less restrictive infringements are good or valid, only that they exist. The default position is that no infringement is valid. The intent of this is to move us closer to that position. Acknowleging realty isn’t a compromise of principles. As a practical matter, achieving no progress whatsoever is more of a reversion to the default position.
I hope this fails and both companies go under.
I can think of some other choices this young man made that were probably more instrumental in his downfall.
The only good thing about this bill is that we can see who votes against it…
Maybe they should work on getting freedom group able to manufacture functioning dumb guns before they try smart ones.
So in theory, MD would have to recognize my Utah permit?
This sounds too good to be true.
Only if you’re a resident of Utah.
I think you’re correct on this one. The Reciprocity Bill only applies to resident permits. The bill would not force a state to recognize Non-resident permits (like most of the ones from Utah).
So you would have to show your CCW permit and something like a driver’s license to show residency in the state that issued the permit.
I don’t see existing firearms being affected by any of this. And last I checked “Freedom Group” wasn’t the only manufacturer of firearms. So go ahead and do whatever you want, plenty of other companies are ready to fill in the gaps.
The police are an army that works for politicians. Not citizens. Look for a huge increase in budget in anticipation of collecting the arms. They might even sweeten it up with enhance immunity or even special circumstancial laws to give the LEOs cover and piece of mind.
If this works in CT the feds are going to consider it. CT is the test case.
If Freedom Group starts playing in any way into gun controller’s hands, we need to let them know LOUDLY that we will not buy their guns. Do what was done to Smith & Wesson, almost cripple the company if we have to. New firearms companies can be created if necessary and there are other firearms manufacturers in existence.
Also $10 says that if these folks purchasing Freedom Group think that the “future” of guns is smart guns, RFID chips, serialized ammunition, etc…then they know absolutely NOTHING about the gun culture 😀
So, this is a thing: “The Freedom Group Proposal. The Company submitted a non-binding proposal, dated January 27, 2014, for the acquisition of the Remington Outdoor Company, Inc., also known as Freedom Group, Inc. (“Freedom”). The Company received no response to such proposal and, by its terms, it expired on February 17, 2014″ http://biz.yahoo.com/e/140311/gdsi8-k.html
I’m a remy golden man myself, until last bow season I had my khar cw 9 with because I have been seeing one of those big kitties running around my farm. One morning I was sitting in my cedar tree ground blind when I had five coyotes come up the draw towards me. I had a buddy give me some HST rounds to try through the gun. So I decided to shoot the last dog coming up the draw. I shot him at 8 yards in his chest cavity. So I wanted to see what the HST did, so I cut open the coyote to see his inards. The HST round jelled his lungs and stayed in the body cavity. And boy did that round peel and mushroom and so what it was supposed to. I still love my goldens and have 1000+ of them but I did buy some HSTs for the wife’s carry rig. The ones that claim to be the best usually can’t hang with the rest. (Somthing my grandpa used to say about farm equipment and used it were applicable).
Bring it, I’ll join. Although anyone that peaceably owns and operates commonly owned firearms is part of the well regulated militia in my mind.
The rap lyrics were clearly inflammatory and had little if any probative value. The lyrics actually undermine the state’s case, for, as his attorney said:
“Think he jus copped some bro’s steezy, took a wheezy nap,
Couldn’t tell if he could bust some grapes from dat rap
Might be he just fakes jacks, yo.
Hes all alone when he skeet skeet skeet ya know,
say he’s just a basket, a shina,
don’t really know a nina.
When he tazzle so bad, soundin like hes bustin cap
it sounds mo like nods, crazy cause da monkeys back.”
Which was as clear a motion to exclude as could be made.
While I am glad to see Matheson’s name on this, I still don’t trust the dude. It’s not just because of the “D” in front of his name, either- he’s going to take a crack at Mike Lee’s Senate spot this year, so he’s hoping for a promotion in the ranks of token Utah Democrat.
Jim’s only real loyalty is it Jim’s career. He’d join the Communist Party if he thought it would get him a few more years in an office.
Can you dry fire this gun without harming the firing mechanism?
Obviously the gun went out of control. It sat in a smelly old sock & it shot the first person it saw when it was freed. Those guns are really dangerous, you need to keep an eye on them all the time.
State cops will be happy, even enthusiastic about enforcing the laws. The local police might be a bit more reluctant because they will face the ire of other members of the community who elected them.
So would an accused’s comments to this blog be admissible?
We’re all phucked come trial day.
I think if it comes to money vs principles. If they refuse the order, they could very well be fired and not have income, but they will have stuck to their principles. Or they can forget what we stand for and go kicking in doors just so they keep getting paid. I think in this day in age America is addicted to money, and most LEOs will forgo what is right for what is easy.
There is a tremendous disconnect between left and right and those in office and the average American. People say your a “conspiracy nut” if you think something like a civil war is going to happened again. I just don’t see how it can be avoided. Many of us are sick and tired of having our freedoms, not just 2a, taken away from us. Owe used to be considered radical, now our numbers grow and those in charge fear us because it means the end of the free ride they have been given. One day, they will push too hard and cross that line, at that point we will see the real “Change we can believe in”
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” throughout U.S. history, and that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
That last sentence seems to be an admission of sorts and an interesting one. I read that to indicate that a person may need a weapon to face confrontation with the implication that this is because their attacker might be armed. If everyone were denied arms this wouldn’t be the case unless the attacker illegally bore arms. Thus this could be taken to acknowledge that some people (criminals) will continue to bear arms even if arms are denied to the people.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into it but I’m intrigued by the idea that SCOTUS came very close to acknowledging (admitting?) that criminals do not follow the law and that laws against bearing arms disarm only the law abiding.
If I were an anti, that sentence would give me cold chills of fear and rage. As I am not an anti if gives me hope that at least in it’s current configuration the SCOTUS seems to mostly get it, finally; never minding that pesky 2A, that denying arms to the people, whatever utility it may have, results in more harm than good.
If that idea ever catches on too widely the antis wont just be in retrograde, it will be a full on flight from accusations of pro-crime and anti safety, of standing up only for tyranny at the cost of liberty, or of just being either evil or insane, for once you remove the contrived underpinnings of their tripe about being for safety, crime prevention and/or good sense their real motives will be laid bare; Paranoia, phobia, racism, classism and stateism, none of which is much of a political plank to run on in 21st century US. Insane or evil, but never common sense or in the interest of the greater good, this may end up being the legacy of the antis.
Gun grabbers go by color too… Black= evil
Kind of looks like I need to buy a 700 sooner than later….
Someone needs to explain to me the business sense in creating a product that no one asked for, wants, or will feel the need to get.
“Smart guns” are great ideas to people who don’t own or know anything about guns. People who actually spend cashy money on guns don’t want them, except for maybe a really small niche.
“… it’s not something they want to force down anyone’s throat.”
Pardon my cynicism, but every industry loves an opportunity to corner its respective market. Just look at what the health insurance industry did with O-sh!t-care: you are now compelled by force of law to buy their overpriced, substandard product, whether you want it or not.
Don’t be shocked when legislation is approved to compel all firearm manufactures to offer this “enhanced capability”.
*face palm*
9mm? Mildly interested. Now if it was 9x39mm I’d be wildly interested.
+1 Bill. Or even a HiPoint carbine. And I’ve owned a Keltec Sub2000 I paid $350 for. But sure LOOKS cool.
Is it dishonest to carry a condom in your wallet?
Wow, from looking around the room it looks like there were more people at my niece’s b-day party than there are MDA supporters…
Hi, i just bought a paintball handgun, and i would like to know where can i get a permit for it.
Couple years ago in the more intelligent areas of the blogosphere there was this term, referring to being “Fisk-ed”.
Nice Fisking. Royally, actually.
Since I don’t see that term so often, may I propose a new sub-category meme reserved for the truly clueless within the larger prog-tard reason free universe where legends in their own minds like the good prof in ID, opine and need recognition as especially logic-free Anti-gun subspecies?
“Krafft-ed”
PS is this the same Kraft that’s about 6’3″ 300 pds with bald head…if so remind me not to piss you off…:)