Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Federal Reciprocity Bill - AK article
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=12130		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Federal Reciprocity Bill - AK article
Quote:
Begich Co-Sponsors Bill to Carry Concealed Weapons Across State Lines
Story link
February 24, 2009

From a Senator Mark Begich press release:
In an effort to secure the rights of individuals to lawfully carry concealed firearms across state lines, Sen. Mark Begich is co-sponsoring the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.


Currently, Sen. Begich is the only Democrat of the 19 senators co-sponsoring the legislation that allows an individual to lawfully carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they have a valid permit or, if under their state of residence, they are allowed to do so.

"This bill will allow Alaskans who are able to carry a concealed weapon legally in our state, to do so when they travel to other states that have a system of concealed carry laws," Sen. Begich said. "The Second Amendment is of utmost importance to Alaskans, and this is just one step in my ongoing commitment to protect our right to bear arms."

The Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act does not mandate the right to carry concealed weapons in states that do not allow the practice. It basically grants a reciprocity agreement allowing Alaskans who can legally carry at home to do so in states with conceal carry laws.

If anyone is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm they will continue to be prohibited under this bill. Individuals must also follow state laws concerning specific locations where firearms may not be carried such as in court houses and schools.

Sen. Begich is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and received an "A" rating from the organization during his recent campaign for the U.S. Senate. He also holds a concealed carry permit in Alaska.

© AlaskaReport.com All Rights Reserved.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
You might want to change the title. It's proposed federal legislation.
Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sure, I thought this was new though. It looks like a different author this time around. Same type of thing though.

S. 3207 was:
Quote:
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2009-01-09]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]
Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]
Sen. Richard Burr [R-NC]


ETA: title changed
Author:  bensdad [ Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
haven't we had this discussion before? I remember it real well, but it might have been on some of the other boards. This is not a fed. issue. We DO NOT want it to be a fed issue. Once they get their greasy little fingers on carry law we will see all manner of malicious mischief.
Author:  Sietch [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I, for one, am AGAINST any type of federal reciprocity legislation.

It's irresponsible of state governments to disallow carry, and it's certainly annoying that reciprocity is such a crap shoot between those that do.

Still, it would set a bad precedent in the relationship between states' rights and the Fed.
Author:  chuckw [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not to drag this out - but this isn't a federal carry permit, which I agree that we don't want to have. This is a federal requirement that states provide reciprocity. If Wisconsin started arresting visiting Minnesota drivers because they lacked a valid (Wisconsin) driver's license, I would be happy for the federal government step in and address that. I don't see how this is different.

And I just get a kick out of the idea that I could carry in CA until they repealed their carry law. :D
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think a federal reciprocity bill would be a good thing, but there are certainly two sides to the question, and I respect those who feel otherwise.

The real problem with reciprocity mandated at a federal level is that it would cause a firestorm around the matter of carrying in states that are presently may-issue. Iowa is a good example. There is a grass-roots effort to get the law changed there, and I have every reason to believe that it will eventually be successful. But if a federal reciprocity law were passed, it would create a situation in Iowa where nonresidents who happen to reside in a shall-issue state would have liberties unavailable to local residents. We could see states create two classes of carry permits in an effort to work around the federal law, with the more readily available class burdened with restrictions that make it wortheless.

But even among states with reasonable laws, reciprocity is a mess and it is unlikely to get fixed at the state level. The problem appears to be getting worse with some states now refusing to recognize an otherwise valid out of state permit if the person possessing it is not a resident of the issuing state. That is the kind of problem that is best addressed through federal legislation.
Author:  bensdad [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Not to drag this out - but this isn't a federal carry permit, which I agree that we don't want to have. This is a federal requirement that states provide reciprocity.



That's right. Just one camel sticking it's nose under one tent. Nothing to see hear. Move along. :roll:

This is... a'hem... NONE OF THE FED. GOVS BUSINESS! Once they get involved (and no matter what you say, this would constitute getting involved) there will be no end to the regulations/mandates/requirements/etc. they would put in place. Don't be fooled. This is not a good thing.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:34 am ]
Post subject: 
I disagree. It's a firm foot down on the subject of full faith and credit.

If the camel wants to come in, he's coming anyway. This doesn't open a door not already available.
Author:  bensdad [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Right, but using that "already available" door in a malicious way (further restrictions, limitations, qualifications) right off the bat would be a transparent attack on our rights. Using this tool to get involved (in what APPEARS to be a positive way), makes it look like they're on our side. That way, a year or two from now, they can pat us on the back with one hand, give a firm handshake with the other, grin for the cameras, and drop the national permit to carry hammer on us. This will be followed shortly by fingerprinting, standardized structure and curriculum for the carry class, mandatory conceal, no carry in any place with booze, the signs have legal weight, $200/year fee, etc., etc., etc.

I argued about this forever on THR and/or that new one (I forget what it's called). I'm not gonna do it again here. Hopefully we'll never have to find out if I was right.

Andrew Rothman wrote:
I disagree. It's a firm foot down on the subject of full faith and credit.

If the camel wants to come in, he's coming anyway. This doesn't open a door not already available.
Author:  Sietch [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yep. I'm still wishing for better carry laws throughout the nation, and still against this bill.

A better use of pro-2A politicians' resources, and a better first step, would be legislation reaffirming the right. That is, a bill barring the complete prohibition of carry by state governments, and maybe even language demanding nothing less than a shall-issue system in states that choose to regulate carry with permits.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/