National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Drawn Up for Next Congress

[longcall911]

Constitutional carry is a separate issue. In fact, it is a state issue, not national.

Last session we had HB 230. I'm sure Rep. Saccone will reintroduce it, shortly. But, I have to ask, are you guys who are demanding it willing to fight for it? In the past, support has been extremely soft.

National reciprocity at the federal level and constitutional carry at the state level are both within reach. But, if we have people on our side fighting us because neither bill includes their little pet issue, then we'll end up with nothing.

We need people to quit bitchin' and start pitchin'.

We will have petitions ready by the Larry Pratt Allentown meeting. Start talking to people about both. We will use the petitions in order to organize people in congressional districts, as needed. For example, if Rep Kelly says he'll vote yes, great. If Rep Dent won't commit, we'll contact all petition signers in district 15 which runs along Rt 78 from Northampton Co to Lebanon Co and we'll organize a rally day at his offices.

This is our chance to reclaim rights. Please stop complaining, pick up a shovel, and help.

[Mitch10mm]

The complaints sound like the guys that were convinced Trump was going to do a 180 and come out liberal on all the issues or was running so Hillary would win or some other cynical conspiracy theory.

[longcall911]

Absolutely!


I have to go to the PO frequently for business and it's always a dilemma....do I leave the pistol in the car or carry concealed and knowingly breaking the law. I disarm myself to "comply" but hate it. Being forced to leave the firearm unattended in the car is FAR LESS SAFE than keeping it concealed and holstered. I HATE HATE HATE leaving it in the car anywhere for any reason but I also hate the prospect of a felony and being prohibited for doing nothing wrong (morally, not legally).

This is at the PO that's in a strip mall where I can legally park with it in the car. If I visit the PO that's a dedicated Federal building, it's illegal to even have it in the car in the parking lot. It's insanity.

Carry in federal facility is a totally separate issue. see 18 U.S. Code § 930 This is existing law that would need t o be repealed. It has nothing to do with passing a National Reciprocity bill.

Please don't bury National Reciprocity under all kinds of other issues and say "I'd support it if it addressed my pet peeve". If your pet peeve bothers you so much, start a movement to fix it. Please don't take a good clean bill that others have worked hard to field, and then start demanding changes to make you happy (not saying you are doing this, just making a general statement to all.)

[51158]

Carry in federal facility is a totally separate issue. see 18 U.S. Code § 930 This is existing law that would need t o be repealed. It has nothing to do with passing a National Reciprocity bill.

Please don't bury National Reciprocity under all kinds of other issues and say "I'd support it if it addressed my pet peeve". If your pet peeve bothers you so much, start a movement to fix it. Please don't take a good clean bill that others have worked hard to field, and then start demanding changes to make you happy (not saying you are doing this, just making a general statement to all.)

a breath of fresh air! it's all about if I go on vacation I should be able to defend myself... BULLSHIT! the states that limit things that are important to you, don't visit... Kind of a no brainer! then again it's where we've come.. "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME AND WHAT I WANT" welcome to America 2016..

[KCJones]

We see the bill of rights differently, Everything I've read about the bill of rights points me to the opinion that they are their to keep the federal government from encroaching on our rights..

case in point..
read this and tell me what it says, Without any predisposed opinion if possible..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

where does that First Amendment say we can't have prayer in our local grammar school? Am I getting my point across? how we're reading it isn't how it was intended...

I think it's VERY significant that the 1st says "congress shall make no law" whereas the 2nd says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" with no mention of law or congress.

The first one is process oriented. It restricts the federal government from interfering with a right.

The second is rights-oriented. It demands they preserve, protect & defend a right.

So I agree with you (I think) on the 1st. It does NOT prohibit prayer in school. You may not enforce prayer in school at a national level, you may not prohibit prayer in school at a national level, you may not even address prayer in school at a national level. My read of the 1st is that you can have prayer in schools at a states' rights level. Your state constitution and laws may speak to it or not. New York may ban school prayer and Texas may demand it, that's up to TX and NY. The feds have no place in it, they 'shall make no law'.

The second case is quite the opposite. It is the -right- that is paramount, not the process. To me it's clear that states' rights trump feds in the 1st amendment, but that natural rights trump ALL in the 2nd amendment. Thus, I feel the feds intervening to preserve (not license, not regulate, but preserve...) that right is appropriate.

I will also repeat, I'm a fan of reciprocity not as what 'should be' but as a practical step forward. I think constitutional carry is what 'should be'... But as a pragmatist I recognize that the wall of our gun rights has been taken down stone-by-stone, not all at once. I'm okay with putting some stones back even if what I really want is the full wall restored...

[internet troll]

But, if we have people on our side fighting us because neither bill includes their little pet issue, then we'll end with nothing.

Sorry, but unless we attach a rider saying that every internet post has to have a picture of a good looking woman in bikini at the end of it, I can't in good conscience support this bill. It will make the internet a happier place. obviously I'm kidding but I think the idea has merit

[Qtrborecrazy]

Wasn't this legislation brought up because it was someone's pet peeve?

[fallenleader]

Sorry, but unless we attach a rider saying that every internet post has to have a picture of a good looking woman in bikini at the end of it,[/COLOR]

then you better start feeding her cheesecaek.

the main issue with government and bills is that at the 11th hour they try and slip abortion regulations into a item that was entirely centered around where they purchase tires.
or they come out of the gate with some side rider that is unrelated
if they worked on "tire bill" "abortion issue" and "toilet paper expenditure" separately, they'd actually have to put in a 40hr week.

keep it clean, pass it and enjoy the gained ground, push the rest as needed.
i contacted people about the hearing protection act and let them know what i thought, haven't had a chance to send out for this yet.

[longcall911]

Wasn't this legislation brought up because it was someone's pet peeve?

Yes, and that someone did something about it. He (not suggesting it was me) paid a law firm to draft a bill. He then hired (at great expense) a lobbyist to find a House Rep willing to sponsor it. He sought out the Trump campaign to get them onboard. He sought out the press to make it a national story. He has been contacting grassroots organizations across the country to garner support.

That's how it is done.

You don't take someone else's hard work and when it looks like it may actually pay off, sit around and do nothing except throw stones at it unless someone, you don't even know who, changes it to include your little thing. That approach is rude, lazy, and destructive to the original bill.