From GOA: Concealed Carry Reciprocity In Congress!

dsm

dsm

Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
799
Likes
63
Location
Connecticut
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Probably a fat chance of passing, but if there was ever a good reason to call a senator's office, this is it:

Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment
-- Action needed right away!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has filed a pro-gun amendment to HR 980, and it
could be voted on as early as tomorrow!

This amendment would protect the right of citizens to carry concealed
weapons (outside of their home state) in states that allow concealed carry.

Sen. Vitter explains that his amendment does not violate the rights of
states as it "does NOT establish national standards for concealed
carry, nor
does it provide for a national carry permit."

In other words, the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws
concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried
shall be followed. "My amendment will not federalize concealed carry
permits but simply requires concealed carry permits to be recognized in
other states that allow concealed carry permits," Vitter said.

This is a real reciprocity provision which grants citizens the
"full faith
and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the
Constitution.
Section 1 of this article says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Vitter says that this constitutional provision authorizes the Congress to
pass legislation forcing each state to recognize the "public
Acts" of other
states. So if states are not willing to recognize another state's laws,
Congress has the authority to pass laws to require recognition of those
measures.

It's just like with driver's licenses. If certain states refused to honor
the driver's licenses of citizens in other states, Congress could pass
legislation (under Article IV) to require every state to honor all licenses.


ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote for the Vitter amendment to HR
980 to protect the right to carry concealed firearms outside of your home
state.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Please support the Vitter amendment to HR 980. This amendment will protect
the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without
violating the rights of other states. Thus, the Vitter language masterfully
protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment
rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the
border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Vitter concealed carry amendment.

Sincerely,


****************************
Click to expand...
 
WayneWong said:
Which senator should I send this too? Senator Douchebag or Senator f***face?
Click to expand...

I sent it to both of them, not that it'll do any good. The frogman of the Chappaquiddick usually sends me a reply that makes it clear he(actually a lackey, or for all I know an automated program) didn't read my email.
 
I sent it to both of them. Not because I think there's a chance in hell that theyll favor it, but because I am pro 2A and they are not, and I want them to know that I am not on the same side as them, nor do I fall fall their socialist anti-human rights views, and I am damn proud of that.
 
I'll probably get a good flame job here, but I actually think that forcing one state to recognize credentials from another state is an area that the fed .gov ought to stay out of.
 
dwarven1 said:
You DID read Article IV of the US Constitution, right? Might want to read it again, then.
Click to expand...
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

So state X recognizes that state Y in fact issued a license to a citizen in state Y. Should that mean that state X has to honor the privileges the license grants? I agree if a contract is made in one state, it should be able to be enforced in all states. But, if I have a hard time getting a license to practice law/medicine/electrical work in one state, does that give me a right to just get the license in the state that has the lowest standards?

I will not cry if this thing goes through, as it will benefit all of us. And I do not believe we should have a gun license system period. My point is that it steps on states rights.
 
newenglandjeff said:
My point is that it steps on states rights.
Click to expand...

Hardly. The independent and sovereign states mutually agreed to this provision as part of the Constitution they ratified. It no more infringes on their powers (not rights) than it would for a court to hold an individual to the terms on a contract he or she freely negotiated with another. Your examples regarding individual licenses might be appropriate if we were talking about requiring one state to allow someone to open a gun shop because they had the necessary business license from another state (or city or county). It would be more appropriate to compare this situation to other private non-commercial actions by individuals. For example, the hypothetical scenario of one state requiring that you obtain a driver license and automobile registration in order to drive through that state. There's also the very real situation from my youth where some states refused to recognize marriage licenses from other states, particularly when those license had been issued to members of different races. There's not much to recommend states' powers (so-called "states rights") if the states can't be held to simple contracts to which they've agreed.

Ken
 
yes but

jar said:
I sent it to both of them, not that it'll do any good. The frogman of the Chappaquiddick usually sends me a reply that makes it clear he(actually a lackey, or for all I know an automated program) didn't read my email.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is do they get 6 emails or 6,000? I'd bet they both consider the number of 2A supporters here to be insignificant. I think I have seen stats here and the number of permit holders isn't high. Everyone needs to respond!

Bill
 
My view? Never hesitate to express your support for good legislation. Remaining silent gives tacit approval for the status quo. Make noise.
 
KMaurer said:
Hardly. The independent and sovereign states mutually agreed to this provision as part of the Constitution they ratified. It no more infringes on their powers (not rights) than it would for a court to hold an individual to the terms on a contract he or she freely negotiated with another. Your examples regarding individual licenses might be appropriate if we were talking about requiring one state to allow someone to open a gun shop because they had the necessary business license from another state (or city or county). It would be more appropriate to compare this situation to other private non-commercial actions by individuals. For example, the hypothetical scenario of one state requiring that you obtain a driver license and automobile registration in order to drive through that state. There's also the very real situation from my youth where some states refused to recognize marriage licenses from other states, particularly when those license had been issued to members of different races. There's not much to recommend states' powers (so-called "states rights") if the states can't be held to simple contracts to which they've agreed. Ken
Click to expand...
State sovereignty would have been a better choice of words on my part.

We do have the real situation today with some states allowing gay marriage and others do not. Now I would agree that even if a state does recognize gay marriage, they would be bound to recognize that a social contract of sorts exists. Even the results of court findings and divorce agreements. Could the fed.gov come in and say all states have to allow same sex unions? Or could they say no state will allow such unions? Im more comfortable with them not getting involved. We have 50* independent laboritories of democracy that the citizens are free to choose between. If you do not like the way things go in one state, you can try to change it or move to a better state.

Another member posted that if the fed.gov did not get involved that we would have had to get a separate license to drive in each state. I think reciprocity agreements would have evolved naturally. But the states would still have had the ability to exclude drivers from other states that may issue licenses to illegal aliens or have lax standards for issuance.

After reading Senator Vitters proposal again, I admit it is an easier pill to swallow because it does not affect states that do not have CC. It could be constitutional, but maybe not such a great idea to have the fed.gov put there foot in the door on this one. If it's something they think can give you, they will think it's something they can take away.

*At least one source has this number as high as 57
 
Last edited:
aklaft said:
This bill was tabled yesterday. That means the it's dead, let alone the amendment.
Click to expand...

Sir this part of the bill, Amendment #4763, was tabled,

110th Congress
S.Amdt. 4763: To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces...

To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed Forces.

An amendment to H.R. 980: Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.
Offered: May 14, 2008
Sponsor: Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Actions:
May 14, 2008: Amendment SA 4763 proposed by Senator Graham to the text of the bill proposed to be stricken by Amdt. No. 4751.
May 14, 2008: Cloture motion on amendment SA 4763 presented in Senate.
May 14, 2008: Motion to table amendment SA 4763 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 55 - 42. Record Vote Number: 127. [Vote Details]
May 14, 2008: Cloture motion on amendment SA 4763 withdrawn by unanimous consent in Senate.
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Finds Pennsylvania Law Barring 18-20 Year-Olds from Concealed Carry Unconstitutional
Replies
1
Views
149
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
We need 200 people like this in congress. NH residents, you need this woman in congress.
Replies
14
Views
597
Broc
Broc
Moving to MA in about a year from FL
5 6 7
Replies
202
Views
3K
Dench
Dench
State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
72
Reptile
Reptile
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom