National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

[Severa]

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill - US House Website

U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill (H.R. 197). This legislation would protect the rights of licensed firearm permit holders by allowing them to carry firearms across the country without a confusing patchwork system.

Specifically, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any 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 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.
•The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.
•It 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.

---------------------------------------

An interesting idea, but I'm not sure it'd get far with the current Administration and Congress...

[Novus Collectus]

Awesome. Now to get this bill passed when we have a presdient who is reasonable on the issue. Good start though.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Severa

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill - US House Website

U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill (H.R. 197). This legislation would protect the rights of licensed firearm permit holders by allowing them to carry firearms across the country without a confusing patchwork system.

Specifically, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any 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 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.
•The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.
•It 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.

---------------------------------------

An interesting idea, but I'm not sure it'd get far with the current Administration and Congress...

I thought this law was already a Constitutional requirement:

Article 4, 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.

[ImnoMensa]

It'll never pass.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

It'll never pass.

Nope, not with this president and the bunch of losers in Congress.

[twinoaks207 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I thought this law was already a Constitutional requirement:

Article 4, 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.

Interesting point you raise here. Don't think I've ever seen this interpreted/followed in this manner. Don't know if that's because it wouldn't apply, hasn't been interpeted this way, or because the Constitution doesn't seem to matter much anymore. There might also be a "states' rights" issue involved here, but again, that doesn't seem to matter much any more either. I'll wait for Tilted to explain.

Can't see this one getting enough support to pass but at least it's out there. Let's see how far it gets & who stops it and why.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by twinoaks207

Interesting point you raise here. Don't think I've ever seen this interpreted/followed in this manner. Don't know if that's because it wouldn't apply, hasn't been interpeted this way, or because the Constitution doesn't seem to matter much anymore. There might also be a "states' rights" issue involved here, but again, that doesn't seem to matter much any more either. I'll wait for Tilted to explain.

Can't see this one getting enough support to pass but at least it's out there. Let's see how far it gets & who stops it and why.

I'm no Constitutional scholar or anything, but if it works to make my driver's license valid, my marriage certificate valid, etc., etc., what would be the difference for my CC Permit on vacations?

[toppick08 (Premo)]

I'll pack where ever I go...the Second Amendment says I can..........

[5thstreet]

Originally Posted by This_person

I thought this law was already a Constitutional requirement:

Article 4, 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.

... (from second post)

I'm no Constitutional scholar or anything, but if it works to make my driver's license valid, my marriage certificate valid, etc., etc., what would be the difference for my CC Permit on vacations?

I'm afraid you're right, you're no Constitutional scholar.

This is typically referred to as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" Here is a website with a pretty good explanation of what is means.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Further Readings

There are plenty of others with the same basic explanation.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not mean that States get to impose their laws on each other, mostly it means they have to honor each others judicial decisions. Most if not all interpretations I've seen say that the clause does not require States to honor each others driver's licenses, States do that under reciprocity agreements and you are still subject to the rules of the road in the State you are driving in.

If your proposed interpretation were correct, each time a State passed a law it would become the law in every State.

I also suspect that the proposed law might be subject to Constitutional challenge. I don't think that Congress has the power to change the States' criminal laws, especially in a way that treats people differently based on which State they are a resident of.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by 5thstreet

I'm afraid you're right, you're no Constitutional scholar.

This is typically referred to as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" Here is a website with a pretty good explanation of what is means.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Further Readings

There are plenty of others with the same basic explanation.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not mean that States get to impose their laws on each other, mostly it means they have to honor each others judicial decisions. Most if not all interpretations I've seen say that the clause does not require States to honor each others driver's licenses, States do that under reciprocity agreements and you are still subject to the rules of the road in the State you are driving in.

If your proposed interpretation were correct, each time a State passed a law it would become the law in every State.

I also suspect that the proposed law might be subject to Constitutional challenge. I don't think that Congress has the power to change the States' criminal laws, especially in a way that treats people differently based on which State they are a resident of.

While I'm not a Constitution scholar, you clearly misunderstood my point.

Nowhere do I suggest that each state must incorporate other states' laws as their own. In fact, I've suggested just the opposite - stating that I believe that you must follow the laws of the state you are in. The rules of the road of the state one person is in includes having a valid driver's license. Now, one state accepts another state's license, but that doesn't mean that (for example) if SD accepts no-helmet laws that MD must accept that as well. Just like if you had a CC Permit from SD that you could carry in places that do not allow weapons in MD - simply that you would be allowed to carry where someone with a MD CC permit could carry.

Do you see how there's a difference between the crap you suggested I was saying, and what I'm actually saying?

Your link suggests how it is normally invoked, not everything it means. If a public act of one state says that John Q. Citizen is permitted to drive/fly/carry a concealed weapon/etc., in the state that issued that public act, why would not every state have to follow that act IAW Article 4, Sect. 1?

Your link also suggests that the DOMA was written to counter this article. Personally, I believe the DOMA to be unconstitutional because of this article.