Tiahrt co-sponsors HR197

**Warpt762x39** · March 30th, 2009, 10:41 PM

http://tiahrt.house.gov/?sectionid=1...14&itemid=1094

WASHINGTON—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.

"The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill recognizes that those who have a valid state-issued concealed firearms permit should not have to forfeit their safety when traveling," said Tiahrt. "Not only does this bill protect the rights of concealed firearm permit holders, it also maintains the right of states to issue concealed weapons permits as they desire. As a mobile society, legal firearm permit carriers should be able to travel from state to state and exercise their fundamental right to self defense—this legislation ensures that."

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.

**RJT** · March 31st, 2009, 04:09 AM

hopefully it passes...wonder how vermont and alaska will be handled since they don't require permits in the first place...and wonder how.......(ie wisconsin, illinois, etc)

edited last part...nvm...should read before i open my mouth lol....

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.

**jimbacher** · March 31st, 2009, 06:49 AM

Good deal.

**stephpd** · March 31st, 2009, 08:45 AM

So how would this work for states like MD and NJ? Non residents could carry but not the residents? Or would those states residents have to get a UT or FL permit?

Doesn't this law trample on 'states rights'? Just asking.

**dc dalton** · March 31st, 2009, 09:01 AM

While it's a nice idea (would love to be able to carry into Jersey when I go there) I see a multitude of problems with the states here, some of which may be constitutional problems.

If this were to pass (and I am doubtful it would) I can see quite a few states questioning the ability of the federal government to force them to accept this. Of course I am talking about states like NJ, NY, MD, CA, CT and MA. This is in fact a law that 'oversteps' the boundaries of the constitution and is really no different than laws that would take away guns from citizens of a state.

While Montana and other states are passing laws telling the feds to stay the F out of their states gun laws states like NJ would be telling the feds the exact same thing just for an opposite reason.

And again, I like the idea but I'm pretty sure the heavily restricted states will fight this one to the bitter end.

**ReconLdr** · March 31st, 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by stephpd

So how would this work for states like MD and NJ? Non residents could carry but not the residents? Or would those states residents have to get a UT or FL permit?

Doesn't this law trample on 'states rights'? Just asking.

I agree this would trample on the states rights but, don't the rights of the people trump the rights of the state?

**dsnover** · March 31st, 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by stephpd

So how would this work for states like MD and NJ? Non residents could carry but not the residents? Or would those states residents have to get a UT or FL permit?

Doesn't this law trample on 'states rights'? Just asking.

While I generally agree that trampling on states rights is a bad thing (one which the Fed doesn't seem to mind doing anyway), I don't think that in this case it applies, due to the fact that the 2nd amendment _already_ indicates that the People have the basic God given right to keep and bear arms. I would argue that states such as MD and NJ have vastly overstepped _their_ bounds by preventing that God given right.

**adymond** · March 31st, 2009, 09:52 AM

There are other threads out there about this same sort of thing. It all comes down to the Fed having the authority to regulate the right of the people to bear arms. Do we want to set that precident? Should it get passed and be shown to be Constitutional what would stop an administration from swinging the other way and banning concealed carry nationally? The precident has been set that they can regulate that. I don't think it's too much of a stretch for some of the Democrats to go along with this and let it pass so that they can turn around and use that as a precident.