Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Letter in support of H.R. 197, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"

  1. #1
    Moderator   
    Join Date
    12-11-07
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    1,147

    Letter in support of H.R. 197, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"

    Just sent this to all my reps. Please feel free to use it for yourself.
    Mr. President,

    I currently have five handgun permits, one from my home state so that I may purchase handguns there, and one from MA, NH, FL, and ME. I require these permits to carry a handgun for personal protection while going about my daily business, and they give me permission to do so in some of the states I do the most work in. I have obtained these permits at great personal expense, subjecting myself to highly invasive inquiries by the state and the FBI. I have provided fingerprints, photos, and answered any number of personal questions to prove that I am not a criminal, and should be allowed to exercise my right to bear arms.

    I hope I will never have to use my weapon, but having it available may some day save my life, as it does thousands of Americans every year. 90% of the time these life-or-death incidents are resolved simply by the presence of a weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen, a powerful deterrent to crime and violence that is kept ready at enormous inconvenience to private citizens. Additionally, the percentage of pistol permit licensees nationwide who use their weapons to do evil is so small that in most states there is not a single recorded incident in any given year.

    Currently, although I have gone to all this trouble and spend thousands of dollars a year on permits and training, if I am uncareful enough to step across the border into the state of New York with one of my guns, I am instantly as much a criminal as a known felon who has committed crimes in the past and intends to commit more with the aid of their illegal gun. In many states there is a mandatory jail sentence if I am discovered with a pistol, even if my possession of that weapon were perfectly legal just a few miles away in another state.

    As I am a law abiding citizen, I am therefore denied my right to self defense in states like NY which do not issue non-resident pistol permits, and states like NJ which do in theory but not in practice. Even in states that do honor one or more of my permits, there are a convoluted set of laws that allow me to have my pistol in some places but not in others, states the only recognize resident permits, and states that only recognize permits from states that recognize theirs (which CT does not have the statutory authority to do, so I am denied my right to keep and bear arms in these states too).

    All these often contradictory laws simply serve to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. I therefore urge you to support H.R. 197, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009". This law will allow my many pistol permits to be treated more like driver's licenses currently are, and allow me to defend myself and my loved ones whether I happen to be in my home state or not.
    "[The 2nd Amendment's] free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man." -- Gus Cotey, Jr.
    NRA, SAF, and JPFO Life Member. USCCA annual member.
    Public Relations Coordinator, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-16-08
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    1,007
    This is a VERY BAD idea!

    The DUMBEST thing you could ever do is give the current administration a way to get their nose under the CCW tent!

    Obama, Biden and Clinton would just LOVE to get the chance to set training standards and procedures for CCW licenses.

    1,000 hours of training

    2,500 round for record

    Psych test every two years

    $1,000.00 Federal Fee plus whatever your state charges.

    NO THANK YOU!

    Leave the CCW with the states, DON"T let the Feds have ANYTHING to do with it!

    Buckshot

  3. #3
    Member  
    Join Date
    03-23-08
    Location
    I live in Arizona
    Posts
    565
    Rights belong in the hands of WE the People, it is not a state issue or a Federal issue. Anything less is infringement.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-12-06
    Location
    Wooster, Ohio
    Posts
    2,676
    as convenient as such a thing would be, I have to agree with those above. We DO NOT want anyone in Washington determining something like this at this time. We need to keep CCW and Open Carry in the hands of the states where we have more control over it.
    The worst things happen at the most critical times, and it's these moments that YOU need to be flawless, not the gun.

    Years of Communist oppression have made the Mosin Nagant impervious to physical damage.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-11-08
    Posts
    138
    This is a VERY BAD idea!

    The DUMBEST thing you could ever do is give the current administration a way to get their nose under the CCW tent!

    Obama, Biden and Clinton would just LOVE to get the chance to set training standards and procedures for CCW licenses.

    1,000 hours of training

    2,500 round for record

    Psych test every two years

    $1,000.00 Federal Fee plus whatever your state charges.

    NO THANK YOU!

    Leave the CCW with the states, DON"T let the Feds have ANYTHING to do with it!

    Buckshot
    This is a large part of the reason why the anti-gun folk have been so successful. They have been willing to back small victories, partial victories, and take it as a given that even the smallest victory could be parlayed into a "good first step" (and how many "first steps" has that been since 1934?) to lead to more "good first steps".

    Too many people on the "pro gun" side has been so afraid of ways in which a potential improvement might be "used against us" that support for such improvements is lukewarm at best.

    The bill in question does not establish any kind of Federal carry license. Basically, what it does is establish reciprocity in exactly the same way it is established for drivers' licenses (I think there's a nice irony in stealing the anti-gunner's "like drivers" line)--you can use your license in other states so long as you follow their laws on where and how you can carry (just like you can drive in other states, but have to follow their traffic laws), with an additional proviso to provide for carry in those states where the ability to carry is completely denied.

    The bill itself, if passed and signed into law (more on that in a bit) is completely a win for us. Take the win and start working on the next win rather than worrying how the other side might "steal" it from us. Keep the pressure up and the "use against us" won't happen. Think Patton, not Monty.

    That said, there is very close to zero chance of this bill passing the current House and Senate. And even if, through some miracle, the Blue Dog Democrats and only slightly RINO's got together and managed to pass it, there is zero chance of Obama signing it into law. And there is zero chance of the House and Senate turning around and overriding Obama's veto. However, that's not the point. The point is maintaining pressure on the politicians in DC. We need to maintain a steady, ongoing, support for pro-gun bills and issues and opposition to anti-gun bills (cf HR 45). It's this ongoing, constant pressure that translates into "job security" issues for elected officials. Without that ongoing pressure it's easy for a politician to say "they'll forget about it by election time" and, frankly, they're often right. It's a lot harder when they get the same feedback every time a bill comes up. They start thinking that maybe if they don't vote the way their constituents want, they might find themselves out of a job next election cycle.

    While I expect we won't get pro-gun bills out of Congress for at least two years, and won't get any signed into law for at least 4, keeping the pressure on for the pro gun bills (like HR17 and HR197) will help keep us from having bills like HR45 passed and signed into law. (This is in addition to explicit opposition to HR45.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-28-06
    Location
    Nashville, Tn
    Posts
    402
    I'm completely against any restrictions to my Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." Period. I let my Senators, Congressmen, State Senators and reps all know that on a regular basis. Whenever a bill is introduced that chips away at any restricitions or regulations, they get another reminder along with a recommendation to vote for it. Of course, when an anti bill is introduced, they get a recommendation against.

    I've let them all know that I will vote for them AS LONG as there is no one on the ballot with a voting record or platform closer to supporting unrestricted RKBA, and continue to remind them as such.

    My Congressman has already gotten my recommendation on this.

  7. #7
    Moderator   
    Join Date
    12-11-07
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by dburkhead
    While I expect we won't get pro-gun bills out of Congress for at least two years, and won't get any signed into law for at least 4, keeping the pressure on for the pro gun bills (like HR17 and HR197) will help keep us from having bills like HR45 passed and signed into law. (This is in addition to explicit opposition to HR45.)
    Exactly. I'm writing my reps about once a week now. Hopefully others will too, to remind them that we're serious.
    "[The 2nd Amendment's] free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man." -- Gus Cotey, Jr.
    NRA, SAF, and JPFO Life Member. USCCA annual member.
    Public Relations Coordinator, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    I also do not like the fedgov requiring states to honor out of state carry permits. It infringes on state's rights. I don't know if this will get the fedgov's nose in the CCW tent but it certainly get's their nose in the tent of overriding state law.

    The "commerce clause" has been stretched, bent, folded, spindled and mutilated so far that it's difficult to recognize that state government's even exist any more. The fedgov has already been telling states what they should have for drinking ages, speed limits, and probably more by beating them over the head with road funding. We don't need to give the fedgov another way to tell states how to run local issues.

    I would prefer we get our personal rights back without tearing down the state's rights in the process. We can do this by working at a state level on law and working at the federal level in the courts. With Heller recognizing our right to arms federally we don't need any more federal law, we need to remove the federal laws that exist.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-11-08
    Posts
    138
    In this case it's not the commerce clause, but the "full faith and credit" clause. It's why, among other things, you can drive in various states on one state's DL, why being married in one state is still married in another state, ditto divorce, why if you commit a crime in one state the police of another state will be more than happy to arrest you and send you back for trial. The "full faith and credit" is why we're one nation, not 50 independent nations.

    And this isn't even an amendment, it's written into the body of the Constitution.

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-16-08
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    1,007
    dburkhead,

    Standard recognition of drivers license have pushed all kinds of changes over the years and is now one of the driving forces behind the "Real ID Act".

    There is NO WAY the Feds would let a chance like this go by, when they could stick their fingers into the pie and ruin it for everyone.

    BAD DEAL.

    Buckshot

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-11-08
    Posts
    138
    Then, frankly, we can forget ever getting our gun rights back. If you're going to wait for the "perfect" legislation where there is no conceivable way it can be "used against us" you are going to wait for a long time indeed.

    Unfortunately, our opposition does not limit themselves in that way. They are perfectly willing to take small gains and use them as springboards to new efforts. The "problems" (as they see them) aren't seen as reasons not to support the legislation, but rather as areas to address later.

    Unless we're willing to take the same approach we. will. lose. So long as the anti-gun forces remain united and we remain divided we. will. lose.

  12. #12
    Member  
    Join Date
    03-23-08
    Location
    I live in Arizona
    Posts
    565
    Then, frankly, we can forget ever getting our gun rights back. If you're going to wait for the "perfect" legislation where there is no conceivable way it can be "used against us" you are going to wait for a long time indeed.

    Unfortunately, our opposition does not limit themselves in that way. They are perfectly willing to take small gains and use them as springboards to new efforts. The "problems" (as they see them) aren't seen as reasons not to support the legislation, but rather as areas to address later.

    Unless we're willing to take the same approach we. will. lose. So long as the anti-gun forces remain united and we remain divided we. will. lose.

    Excellent post. +1

  13. #13
    Member  
    Join Date
    02-08-09
    Posts
    62
    Notice to the posters' who expressed fears about the federal government getting involved in concealed carry on the states . . . . . it is too late.

    Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004

    It basically exempts active duty law enforcement officers (federal, state, and local), as well as qualified retired law enforcement officers from state or local laws which prohibit the carrying of a concealed handgun with certain express exceptions.

  14. #14
    Member  
    Join Date
    03-19-08
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    59
    For all of you who think that this bill is the greatest thing since sliced bread, what makes you believe that they won't pick some state like Kalifornia or New York, with very restrictinve CHL requirements and mandate those nationwide with this thing? IMO, we need to tread very carefully on this one. It could easily turn into a case of, "Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •