• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

From the NRA-ILA

Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
13,887
Likes
220
Location
Haverhill, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
If this was already posted (I'm just logging on and haven't checked), could one of the other Mods just delete it? Thanks....


The Stearns Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns` (R-Fla.) national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill, H.R. 4547, would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its own borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. H.R. 4547 would also apply to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1999.

Today, 46 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Thirty-eight states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-four have "shall issue" permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered "discretionary issue" permit laws, and Vermont allows carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws during the last decade.

Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.02% of more than a half million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 21% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 43% lower robbery, and 13% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. Nine of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida`s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 31% and 52%, respectively. Texas` violent crime and murder rates have dropped 19% and 33%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

The right of self-defense is fundamental, and 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 and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated 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. U.S., 1895)

Congress affirmed the right to 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."
 
Adam_MA said:
Lynne said:
If this was already posted (I'm just logging on and haven't checked), could one of the other Mods just delete it? Thanks....

Hey... Aren't YOU a mod? :D :p

Smart arse... [lol] If I find it, I'll delete it, but I just logged on and there's a bunch of stuff to go through. [wink] I also just saw that I'm the only Mod on right now. [lol]
 
I really do hate that bill. I'll actually lose rights if it passes, at least locally.

It's in violation of our state's laws which are actually more lenient as to where we may carry. Of course, if they don't impose stricter standards on the states, I'm entirely for it.
 
Nickle,

How will this effect your rights if passed? Not doubting you, just curious. Would this require VT to create a Concealed Carry permit law? If that's the case I can see where it would change things for VT residents. Or would it create more off-limits areas for you?

CD

ETA: Just reread your post & saw that you already answered part of it... It's been a long day, sorry.
 
Does that make sense? I mean diff states have diff traffic laws. My MASS license allows me to drive in all states. But I have to follow the driving laws of the state which I'm currently in. Am I missing something?

EDIT: How about a national castle doctrine and stand your ground while we're at it.
 
Big difference between traffic regs and gun laws.

I would think it would go by the current state laws instead, but 4 states don't even allow CCW at all to the general public. What then?
 
Nickle said:
Big difference between traffic regs and gun laws.

I would think it would go by the current state laws instead, but 4 states don't even allow CCW at all to the general public. What then?

I was under the impression that this being a federal law would override that and force a non-ccw state to honor permits. Granted they would, if forced, probably make there law restrict the carry horribly.
 
I'm trying to figure out how this would affect me re NYC.

My upstate permit is specifically NOT valid in "the" city.

So it's just possible, if this passes, that those of you that the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts has deigned to give a class A LTC to may be able to carry in NYC while I still can't.

Wonder if, in that case, my NH non-resident permit would be considered valid in the city?

Hmmn.

Regards
John
 
I just don't understand how this could be a bad thing. It doesn't change any state's laws, it just requires every state to recognize another states permit. Obviously, you must abide by the state's laws you are visiting.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Optimistic Paranoid said:
I'm trying to figure out how this would affect me re NYC.

My upstate permit is specifically NOT valid in "the" city.

So it's just possible, if this passes, that those of you that the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts has deigned to give a class A LTC to may be able to carry in NYC while I still can't.

Wonder if, in that case, my NH non-resident permit would be considered valid in the city?

Hmmn.

Regards
John

I thought that my permit, if this passed, would be good in NYC. Although, it is not at this time. Being national reciprosity, but I am not sure either. I think NY is the only state that has a permit that is not good everywhere in the state. It is moronic. no wonder the crime rate in NYC is so high, only the ciminals have guns.
 
No. If you want to carry in NYC with an upstate permit, you need to get permission from the NYPD Police chief and have it added to your permit. Mine specifically says "Not valid in New York City". It is pretty retarded. I think having a non-elected offical making decision like that is illegal, or if it is not, it should be. Just one more instance where the "shall not be infringed" part is conveniently forgotten by the power hungry liberal goverment. Just my $.02.
 
Nickle said:
Big difference between traffic regs and gun laws.

I would think it would go by the current state laws instead, but 4 states don't even allow CCW at all to the general public. What then?

At first, I thought that was what the "bright-line" text addressed.
...In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations...
But then I realized VT doesn't issue carry permits, so you would be doubly-harmed;

1 Federal law would impose restrictions beyond VT law because VT does not issue.

2. A VT resident would not possess a VT permit to use out of state.
 
Skald said:
Thats what I'm guessing Tony. From the way I read it is that if I'm in VT I would have to follow their laws in terms of where I can and can not carry.

That would be the way I prefer it. Here's the wording, and a link.

``(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or
permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not,
in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station,
in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public
polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal
governing body, in a school, at a professional or school
athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an
establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the
sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent
expressly permitted by State law
.''

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4547

And here's what our restrictions are now. I hope the underlined item above applies.

Title 13: Chpt. 85: § 4003.

School Buildings. (The law says School Buildings and does not mention Primary, Secondary or College So all school buildings, both public and private, are off limits.)
Any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution. (This Section Probably covers Colleges as well, but would certainly apply to state hospitals and correctional facilities)
Court Houses.
A building with controlled points of public access, metal screening devices at each point of public access, and locked compartments, accessible only to security personnel, for storage of checked firearms.

http://www.packing.org/state/vermont/
 
Well, exactly the way it's currently written, if it isn't misinterpreted, probably not. But, change a word or two, or misinterpret it, and it overrides the places the states currently allow to carry.

"If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms" VT doesn't. Misinterpret this, and I lose the RIGHT to carry concealed in numerous places. Remember, for 44 states CCW is a privelege, in 2 (VT and AK) it's a RIGHT.
 
Back
Top Bottom