NRA backs H.R. 2959 when there's a better option

[omega42]

I got an email about encouraging my representative to cosponsor (fat chance with Kuster!) Once I looked into the bill it got strange. Here's the key passage from H.R. 2959:

"(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so."

The Thomas website helpfully noted that H.R. 578 and S. 1908 were related. Here's the language from those twin bills:

"(b) Conditions and Limitations- The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

(c) Unrestricted License or Permit- 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, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State."

H.R. 578/S. 1908 looks like the one to get behind. Opinions?

Source links:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...carry-reciprocity-act-of-2013.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2959:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.578:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN01908:

 

[Inquisitor]

H.R. 578/S. 1908 also address States with no permit required to carry.

H.R. 578/S. 1908 looks like the one to get behind. Opinions?

My personal opinion is that the twin Bills, H.R. 578 and S. 1908 are a better choice to support than H.R. 2959. These twin Bills have several advantages over H.R. 2959:

1. They recognize that there are states that do not require a permit/license to carry concealed firearms and have a provision for residents from those states to carry in all other states.

2. They have a provision that if states issue various permits/licenses to carry concealed firearms that have varying restrictions such as where, in the state, those permits/licenses are valid, then out-of-state permit holders have the equivalent of the most unrestricted permit/license issued by that state.

All 3 of these bills do have a major short-coming; these Bills do not extend the exemption contained in the Gun Free School Zones Act for holders of permits/licenses issued by the State in which the school zone is located, to holders of permits/licenses issued by other States. This omission is a serious restriction that needs to be addressed in these Bills since the Gun Free School Zones Act is a Federal regulation [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)]. Without this exemption, out-of-state permits/licenses are not valid within 1000 feet of any “school zone”. The term "school zone" means:

(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26) the term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.


Always ask for more than the maximum because they will only offer less than the minimum.

 

[Malodave]

I don't even understand exactly what these sections are really talking about.

Malodave

 

[wmccurdy53]

Plain English please.

 

[omega42]

Plain English:

H.R. 2959 says states have to allow CC permit holders from other states to carry concealed under whatever restriction level they want to impose.

H.R. 578/S. 1908 says states have to treat out of state CC permits the same as their own unrestricted permits.

 

[exo]

Once again, top down federally imposed solutions rarely go well in the long term.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I don't even understand exactly what these sections are really talking about.

Malodave

Same my ****ing head spins

 

[Garys]

Once again, top down federally imposed solutions rarely go well in the long term.

This. As a libertarian (as opposed to Libertarian) the fewer federal laws there are the better. Once the federal government gets it's foot in the door, it's a short step to the federal government imposing minimum training and proficiency standards. It's bad enough that the ATF sets the absurdly low standards for what a Prohibited Person is, I dread to think what they'd come up with for minimum licensing standards.

 

[omega42]

Once the federal government gets it's foot in the door ...

The federal government got its foot in the door in 1934 (NFA) and a leg or two in 1968 (GCA). The language of these bills does not increase that encroachment.

If states were respecting the Constitution these bills would not be needed. Not only 2A but Article IV, Section 1 which starts "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." We don't live in that world so these bills target some legislative weight on this particular area.

 

[Hoover]

....

 

[The5thDentist]

Wasn't Mark Begich involved with 2959?

 

[JohnZ]

Wouldn't this open up and equal protection challenge for suitability? How could ma impose suitability on it's own subjects when there are many more millions of people who are issued licenses under shall issue? How could they argue that suitability is needed but all those other people we just don't care about evaluating their suitability?