Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

[jasons]

As stated before this national carry bill Isn't a good idea. Might sound good but its gonna be a nightmare. Leave it up to the states I mean its not ideal, as some might be bad like ma but others are great like vt NH and you can seek refuge there.

Have you actually read the bill? What specifically is not a good idea?





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 2011'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.
SEC. 3. 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, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document 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 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 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) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.
(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) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[Blitz1]

OK. I'll do it for you.

If Obama is smart, he'll sign this into law and use the resulting shitstorm to pass lots of further restrictions.

Let's think about the likely consequences if this piece of shit passes...

States like MA, NY, MD, CA, IL, HI, and WI will go apoplectic. Every rep and senator from all of these states will co-sponsor The Sensible For The Children National Concealed Carry Act. This bill will create a national CC permit modeled after the most restrictive ones in the country. It'll be 1998 in Mass all over again.

Even if a federal permit bill is not proposed, let's think of the consequences for us (this part is for Dench because he doesn't care how much the government restricts other peoples' freedoms as long as it doesn't affect him).

First off, does anybody think the Mass legislature is going to stand by and let people from other states come here and carry concealed? Really? Even if federal law forces reciprocity on them, does anybody think they won't come up with a way to restrict it? How about this:

Make it illegal to carry concealed within 3000 feet of a school (for the children).

Create a law similar to Texas's 30.06 code where all someone has to do is post "No Guns Allowed" and you can be arrested (for a permit-forfeiting-permanent-disqualifying weapons violation) if you carry on the premises. (Unlike now where you can only be arrested for trespassing, and only if you're asked to leave and don't).

Make it illegal to carry concealed to any carnival, fair, church, restaurant, sporting event, muffler shop - you name it. We have it pretty good here with regards to where we can carry. That will change if this bill gets passed.

Make no mistake about it folks, if this piece of shit gets passed, things get worse for us. Probably much worse.

There it is.

 

[bigiron]

If this actually became law, MA would probably move to ban concealed carry entirely thus excluding it from any reciprocity altogether.

Scott Brown is still a dbag though.

This has also been my concern. What's to keep the MA and the other anti states from making carry illegal?

 

[jasons]

So it's bad because the moonbats might get upset and punish us for standing up for our rights? Sorry, but you guys are way off base on this one.

What's to keep the MA and the other anti states from making carry illegal?

.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[jasons]

.

 

[drgrant]

VT also recognizes MASS LTC's, so that is cool

ARV said it, but this point really needs to be driven home....



VT doesn't recognize anything because it doesn't require a permit. For ANYONE. EVER. Same thing with Alaska and Arizona. These states don't require that you beg for permission to carry a loaded handgun within their borders.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Although this is a visceral disappointment, I can think of at least three really good reasons why this is a reasonable position for Sen. Brown:

1) A vote for would have been used against him by Ms. Warren and would have ultimately cost votes. Voters in MA still don't regard the possession and carrying of arms 'normal'.

I disagree with this, I don't think it would make that big of a difference, not even in MA. The amount of people who would throw him on a gun issue are lost in the din of the moonbats who are already voting for Warren anyways.

2) There are many good reasons (mostly articulated in previous comments) why legislation of this type is NOT the way we want to have our second amendment rights recognized and vindicated.

3) As I've stated before, H.R. 822 is NOT bill of substance. I never thought that this was a bill that had any serious chance of passing and was never intended to do so. This was an opportunity for members of Congress to get 'on the 2A record' with little threat of upsetting the status quo. Noses were counted well in advance to ensure that this didn't go through and that each Senator had the opportunity to come down on the side of the issue that was most favorable for them.

I agree with all of the above.

HR 822 is totally irrelevant in any case. Even if by some miracle the bill passed both houses, the President won't sign it.

This is the summary version of the whole thing... .... basically... in the words of Carl Bratananaewski, "Waitaminute, what am I thinking.... none of this matters!!!"

-Mike

 

[Nana the Great]

So according to some here, we should not accept relaxation of some gun control restrictions, because it will make MA leftists angry?

Sounds bizarre to me, but what do I know?

 

[pernox]

So it's bad because the moonbats might get upset and punish us for standing up for our rights? Sorry, but you guys are way off base on this one.



.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, it is bad because it allows the Federal Government to define a right in such a way that recognizes licensing as a reasonable thing in regards to the citizenry's practice thereof. To mete out a right with licenses, background checks, prohibited persons, et al is to acknowledge that it's okay to infringe upon it. To define it as something subject to regulation is conceding authority to the .gov when such authority should only lie with individuals making their own decision on whether or not they choose to keep and bear arms. No governing body - local, state, or most frighteningly federal should have that authority.

While the short term result would be a plus for freedom, the long term view suggests that when you give the Federal Government power over anything they will **** it up eventually - this would be no different.

 

[jasons]

So according to some here, we should not accept relaxation of some gun control restrictions, because it will make MA leftists angry?

Sounds bizarre to me, but what do I know?

Yeah, it's the weirdest out yourself thread ever.

 

[GM-GUY]

Brown has been off my list for awhile since the Frank-Dodd Finance Reform Bill, and his 'revelations' in his book that still don't ring true.

Having a Brown, or a McCain, or any other RINO only gives the Dems a chance to say look at the wonderful Bi-Partisan measure - it's still just a measure of K-rap.

 

[bigiron]

So it's bad because the moonbats might get upset and punish us for standing up for our rights? Sorry, but you guys are way off base on this one.



.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's already infringed. You actually think that line of defense will hold in MA, NY, CA, NJ, CT, etc? Illinois does not have any provisions for concealed carry, the only state in the nation. This bill would not allow a license holder from another state to carry in Illinois. As I said, my CONCERN is that the anti states will eliminate their carry laws and join Illinois. What odds would you put on a concealed carry ban passing in MA if MA were suddenly forced to recognize permits from all other states? I would give whatever time and treasure I could to fight it, but I'm afraid it would be a losing battle at this time.

 

[jasons]

No, it is bad because it allows the Federal Government to define a right in such a way that recognizes licensing as a reasonable thing in regards to the citizenry's practice thereof. To mete out a right with licenses, background checks, prohibited persons, et al is to acknowledge that it's okay to infringe upon it. To define it as something subject to regulation is conceding authority to the .gov when such authority should only lie with individuals making their own decision on whether or not they choose to keep and bear arms. No governing body - local, state, or most frighteningly federal should have that authority.

While the short term result would be a plus for freedom, the long term view suggests that when you give the Federal Government power over anything they will **** it up eventually - this would be no different.

SCOTUS has already found that restrictions like the ones you listed are "reasonable." I don't necessarily agree but it's settled. In any case this bill has nothing do do with defining what restrictions are "reasonable," it just says that the states have to recognize the second amendment rights of people who have already jumped through whatever "reasonable restrictions" their home state makes them jump through. This is pretty much how reciprocity already works for the (40+?) states that have it.

 

[Patriot0717]

It does not matter what that bill says! Massachusetts and other commie states will do what they want. I can't figure out why people can't wrap there heads around that. I remember the first time I voted. It was great, I was so excited when I voted to roll back the sales tax. I was going to make a difference. (Hahaha) The best time was when I helped out getting signatures, and after playing by rules and putting some work into it we were ignored by the legislatures. (More than a couple times) I was led to believe the people of this state had a voice and would be represented properly. Then I grew up. Hahahaha

 

[jasons]

It's already infringed. You actually think that line of defense will hold in MA, NY, CA, NJ, CT, etc? Illinois does not have any provisions for concealed carry, the only state in the nation. This bill would not allow a license holder from another state to carry in Illinois. As I said, my CONCERN is that the anti states will eliminate their carry laws and join Illinois. What odds would you put on a concealed carry ban passing in MA if MA were suddenly forced to recognize permits from all other states? I would give whatever time and treasure I could to fight it, but I'm afraid it would be a losing battle at this time.

They could try to ban carry but someone would file an injunction and the case would work its way through the system. I may be naive but I have a hard time seeing how SCOTUS will consider a total ban on carry to be a "reasonable restriction."

 

[jasons]

It does not matter what that bill says! Massachusetts and other commie states will do what they want. I can't figure out why people can't wrap there heads around that. I remember the first time I voted. It was great, I was so excited when I voted to roll back the sales tax. I was going to make a difference. (Hahaha) The best time was when I helped out getting signatures, and after playing by rules and putting some work into it we were ignored by the legislatures. (More than a couple times) I was led to believe the people of this state had a voice and would be represented properly. Then I grew up. Hahahaha

That's actually a better argument than the "moonbats will punish us" one.

 

[josh2600]

The answer is in your language. "privilege"

If it's established that the Federal government can regulate guns (even if right now that regulation is good for us) then the precedent is set for the Federal government to regulate guns in ways that aren't good for us.

some examples:

- national gun registration
- national guidelines/requirements for who can and can't get a permit
- requiring a national permit (VT doesn't require one at all now, for instance)
- changing the requirements to get a permit
- changing where a permit is valid

yup, cuz these things would certainly aid the fbi, cia, and dea in the fight against terror.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Illinois does not have any provisions for concealed carry, the only state in the nation.

Out side like to keep saying this, but it's fundamentally misleading. Several states (NJ and HI come to mind) have carry laws that make it all but impossible for anyone not very, very important to get a carry permit, period. The least I read, Hawaii had issued ONE to a highly connected civilian employee of the state police dept.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

An out-of-state colleague just pointed out to me a really import aspect of HR822 that we would want to see. It fixes the problem with Gun Free School Zones. We don't notice that problem here because if we're legally in possession of a gun we have a permit and we don't recognize out-of-state permits.

 

[xtry51]

SCOTUS has already found that restrictions like the ones you listed are "reasonable." I don't necessarily agree but it's settled.

So what you're basically saying is no matter what laws people pass or courts support, you'll obey all of them even if they take away your basic freedom?

 

[jasons]

So what you're basically saying is no matter what laws people pass or courts support, you'll obey all of them even if they take away your basic freedom?

Keep reading (just the very next sentence) and you'd see that I said:

this bill has nothing do do with defining what restrictions are "reasonable,"

Meaning that this bill does NOT in any way:

define a right in such a way that recognizes licensing as a reasonable thing in regards to the citizenry's practice thereof.

Or put another way, the feds have already recognized licensing as a "reasonable thing" at the SCOTUS level. I don't agree with them (as I said,) but it's a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with this bill.

That was some really good "reading something that wasn't there" though. Good job.

 

[BigMike]

This news is unbelievably disappointing. Even though I am no longer a resident of MA, this bugs me really bad.

 

[vicpinto]

OK. I'll do it for you.

If Obama is smart, he'll sign this into law and use the resulting shitstorm to pass lots of further restrictions.

Let's think about the likely consequences if this piece of shit passes...

States like MA, NY, MD, CA, IL, HI, and WI will go apoplectic. Every rep and senator from all of these states will co-sponsor The Sensible For The Children National Concealed Carry Act. This bill will create a national CC permit modeled after the most restrictive ones in the country. It'll be 1998 in Mass all over again.

Even if a federal permit bill is not proposed, let's think of the consequences for us (this part is for Dench because he doesn't care how much the government restricts other peoples' freedoms as long as it doesn't affect him).

First off, does anybody think the Mass legislature is going to stand by and let people from other states come here and carry concealed? Really? Even if federal law forces reciprocity on them, does anybody think they won't come up with a way to restrict it? How about this:

Make it illegal to carry concealed within 3000 feet of a school (for the children).

Create a law similar to Texas's 30.06 code where all someone has to do is post "No Guns Allowed" and you can be arrested (for a permit-forfeiting-permanent-disqualifying weapons violation) if you carry on the premises. (Unlike now where you can only be arrested for trespassing, and only if you're asked to leave and don't).

Make it illegal to carry concealed to any carnival, fair, church, restaurant, sporting event, muffler shop - you name it. We have it pretty good here with regards to where we can carry. That will change if this bill gets passed.

Make no mistake about it folks, if this piece of shit gets passed, things get worse for us. Probably much worse.

I read a thread similar to this one over at ar15.com and this is the side of the issue I come down on. Scott Brown should be voting no on this bill but not for the reasons he states.

 

[GM-GUY]

Okay lets say he votes 'No' on the bill for the 'right reasons' - will he vote 'yes' on a bill that amplifies and codifies the 2nd Amendment that no license is required anywhere - only the NICS system?

Don't hold your breath.

How about author a bill - ANY BILL - that backs ANY conservative value.

I'll get the O2 tank ready......

 

[pernox]

SCOTUS has already found that restrictions like the ones you listed are "reasonable." I don't necessarily agree but it's settled. In any case this bill has nothing do do with defining what restrictions are "reasonable," it just says that the states have to recognize the second amendment rights of people who have already jumped through whatever "reasonable restrictions" their home state makes them jump through. This is pretty much how reciprocity already works for the (40+?) states that have it.

And it makes perfect sense if you agree with the premise that it's acceptable for rights to be handed out by someone other than a creator. I'm not implying that you do - but that a lot of gun owners and many, many sheep already think so, and this would be conceding to that idea. In my opinion, the concession implied with such a law is too great to make the temporary gains acceptable. It just smacks of the mindset that "there should be a law written for that!!!" rather than the mindset we need to have wrt gun laws; "repeal, repeal, repeal."

Incidentally, this is a big part of what makes GOAL frustrating at times. More laws never equal more freedom.

It's a bitter pill to swallow for me on a personal note, because a forced reciprocity law would benefit me immediately. I live within a stone's throw of New York, and choosing between jail time, disarmament, and simply avoiding the state on a regular basis sucks. There's some good eating, a race track, and plenty of other activity over there.

I guess I'm probably a little young and idealistic on the whole thing. Economist is probably right, because he usually is.

 

[vellnueve]

More than a few people here disagree with the proposed bill in the first place because it infringes on the rights of the states.

 

[dixidawg]

I don't understand that at all.

The "states" don't have a right to restrict the 1st amendment, why should they (or the feds) be allowed to restrict the 2nd?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Brown's comment focus on the difference in mind set -

Non-gun people think about what this law would allow others to do in MA.

Gun people think about what this law would allow MA people to do in other places.

Once again, it's not so much about gun control, but of the relationship between the individual and the government.

But, given the reality of the situation in MA, voting for this bill would be more likely to cost Brown an election against a redistributionist like Warren than help him win. Yes, out side would be cheering him - while the mainstream media and his opposition would be scaring the sheep.

 

[Jbarila]

Ok the smoke has cleared ive calmed down a touch. This bill would never become law because of a Potus veto. But we need to shake up Brown and let him know we are watching and pissed. We are a big reason he got elected and no matter how mad I am I could never vote for the likes of Liz. So keep calling Scott, he cant change position now anyway and keep him honest for upcoming votes.

 

[Navy Moose]

I'd vote for Derek, too, except he lives in NH.

wow great point, Guess I am going to have to Vote for Daffy Duck[/QUOTE]

Write in "Eddie Coyle"