PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 2900, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act (2011 Broun)


GMG
01-31-2012, 1:12 PM
Backing Legislation in Congress, Hunter Calls for Action to Protect Responsible Gun-Owners

Dear Friend,

Looking back at the previous year, the U.S. House of Representatives, under a Republican majority, has considered and passed several important initiatives to preserve and strenghten Second Amendment rights.

In 2011, the House approved, with mysupport, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Act, which would allow law-abiding citizens to responsibly carry firearms across state lines. The legislation would require states that allow concealed weapons permits to recognize other state carry permits for weapons, just as drivers licenses and carry permits held by armored-car guards are recognized. H.R. 822 now awaits consideration by the Senate.

Since the National Right-to-Carry Act does not address the tough restrictions imposed upon California residents who would like to obtain concealed carry weapons permits, I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2900, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act. This reciprocity measure, similar to H.R. 822, would also allow California residents to obtain a carry permit in another state and operate under that permit while residing in California.

As a strong supporter of recreational shooting and target practice on both public and private lands, I introduced the bipartisan Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act along with Representative Health Shuler (D-NC). This bill, H.R. 3065, would remove the current restrictions in federal law that unnecessarily limit the way that states can spend funds to establish and maintain shooting ranges.

These important measures will further allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. As Congress considers policy that could affect our constitutional rights, it's critical to preserve and guarantee the ability of responsible Americans to purchase and possess firearms.




Duncan Hunter

Note: Duncan Hunter served as a Capt. in the Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan.

bulgron
01-31-2012, 1:16 PM
It'll never go anywhere, and it's actually the worst possible fix for what ails California's gun laws, but I'm amused anyway.

Rossi357
01-31-2012, 1:23 PM
This is the same guy who told me that internet poker was immoral and degraded family values and I would go to hell is I kept playing it.
Go figure.

lrdchivalry
01-31-2012, 1:42 PM
I just received an email update from my Congressman Duncan Hunter, in the email it states that he is a co-spnsor of HR 2900 with the following words.

Since the National Right-to-Carry Act does not address the tough restrictions imposed upon California residents who would like to obtain concealed carry weapons permits, I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2900, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act. This reciprocity measure, similar to H.R. 822, would also allow California residents to obtain a carry permit in another state and operate under that permit while residing in California.

What are your thoughts on this? Looks like a way for citizens in California to be able to carry for self defense.

ShootinMedic
01-31-2012, 1:55 PM
Sounds good on the surface, but I don't see it passing.

Untamed1972
01-31-2012, 1:58 PM
That would be AWESOME! But if 822 didn't pass it's not likely this one would either.

Glad to see my Rep. signing onto some good bills though.

Perhaps another route would be to for the Feds to start threatening states or counties or LE agencies (like San Diego Sheriff Dept) with loss of any federal funding for not offering shall issue LTCs? Make eligibility for federal funding contingent upon LTC issuance on a shall issue basis?

stix213
01-31-2012, 2:00 PM
I don't see it getting anywhere in the Senate, but I like it. Lets see what eventually happens with HR822 first though.

Southwest Chuck
01-31-2012, 2:10 PM
Here is the text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2900
Bolding is mine....
A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I'm certainly no expert in reading or interpreting the language of this bill, but it doesn't seem to me to help us (as residents) as it is written. Am I wrong?

Librarian
01-31-2012, 2:18 PM
Looks more like (1) is the change

(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm

in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.
(2) appears to cover Vermont, Arizona etc that do not require license.
(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm

in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’.

Window_Seat
01-31-2012, 3:10 PM
Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

Erik.

bulgron
01-31-2012, 3:20 PM
Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

Erik.

What effect might that be?

Common
01-31-2012, 3:24 PM
Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

Erik.

Grizzly Bear scary? Rosanne Barr naked scary? Please elaborate, the suspense is killing me.

The sky is falling!

Untamed1972
01-31-2012, 3:32 PM
Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

Erik.

Since when is it a scary thing for Congress or the Federal gov't to enforce the provisions of the bill of rights and force states to comply with the "bearing of arms for immediate self-defense" language of Heller?

Kinda seems like them doing what they're supposed to be doing isnt it?

bulgron
01-31-2012, 3:41 PM
Since when is it a scary thing for Congress or the Federal gov't to enforce the provisions of the bill of rights and force states to comply with the "bearing of arms for immediate self-defense" language of Heller?

Kinda seems like them doing what they're supposed to be doing isnt it?

I can just hear the complaint now: "But what about state's rights?" It's a crappy complaint, but there you have it.

My problem with this bill is that it wouldn't be a permanent solution. Some future congress could revoke it, or severely limit carry activities under the bill. It's way better if we can get the federal court system to carve out a solid definition of our 2A rights that we can use to defend against bad laws coming out of federal, state and local lawmakers.

Untamed1972
01-31-2012, 4:09 PM
I can just hear the complaint now: "But what about state's rights?" It's a crappy complaint, but there you have it.

My problem with this bill is that it wouldn't be a permanent solution. Some future congress could revoke it, or severely limit carry activities under the bill. It's way better if we can get the federal court system to carve out a solid definition of our 2A rights that we can use to defend against bad laws coming out of federal, state and local lawmakers.

Funny how some cry "states rights" on things that the Feds should rightly be enforcing (like 2A/civil rights law) and dont see anything wrong with the Feds getting involved in things (education/healthcare) that they have no constitutional authority to be involved in. :rolleyes:

Why should we have to wait for the courts? Isn't what we want a Gov't that respects the constitution from the get go so we dont have to fight it out in court for years? If there ended up being bad provisions/restrictions included or added later then challenge THOSE in court.

Why make the fight longer and harder then it needs to be.

That's like saying if CA was about to finally pass a shall-issue LTC bill, you'd want that halted so that the current lawsuits could continue. That's nuts. What we want is the problem fixed the quickest way possible.

ETA: My other answer is "since when did state's rights include the right to violate the enumerated civil rights of US citizens?"

SilverTauron
01-31-2012, 4:46 PM
It is a heartwarming thing to see representatives offer legislation that helps gun owners, considering all the evil that flows out of Washington regarding firearms.

With the good words said this bill is dead on arrival.

The Democratic Senate will not allow this act to see the light of day. Reid is not stupid, and knows that much like HR 822 if this bill makes it to the President's desk for a signature Obama will be in a no-win scenario, and by extension the entire Democratic Party.

Examples follow thus:Obama signs the bill, it and /or HR822 become law, and he can kiss the support and checkbooks of the leftist blocks goodbye.Those voting groups already are on Obama's ***** now for being dodgy on the subject of a public stance in favor of gun control legislation.

Obama vetos the bill or bills , and can now kiss his arse goodbye from the independents and moderates just waiting for a reason to choose a side of the fence. It goes without saying the Conservatives won't even look at his name on the ballot paper come Election Day one way or the other, but the situation still stands that pro-gun bills like these force the Democrats into a corner if they ever reach the desk of the Executive Branch.

And so, it will die the same way as HR822, in a committee never to see the light of day.

As far as helping matters in California and other leftist-dominated centres of government in America anything imposed at the Federal level will only make matters worse. I keep repeating this quote because it states the attitude of those having the anti-rights perspective plainly and clearly. Dan Lundgren once stated that " If HR822 becomes law, the California Legislature will have NO CHOICE but to ban concealed carry entirely from state law".

What we gun owners are fighting is not only a corrupt way of thinking but a crooked culture built on a philosophy of mass disarmament. Millions of people in New Jersey , California, and Illinois among other places are conditioned to favor laws which control legal guns heavily- not to seek legislation of the opposite. The Feds mandating nationwide carry will be greeted with cheers in most states, and a chorus of boos and jeers from citizens in D.C. , Chicago, and Baltimore who feel the Federal Government just lost is marbles. The idea of a man from South Dakota or Texas carrying in their neck of the woods without a uniform is so alien we may as well be discussing men from deep space.

Thus, should such a law be passed-and I dearly hope one day it does-do not be surprised that your and the leglislatures of New York, Illinois, and New Jersey burn the midnight oil looking for any loophole than can find to maintain the disarmed citizen as a cultural norm.Once the cycle of lawsuits has died down and every blatant attempt at infringement is shut down by the judiciary, expect silliness such as banning civilian possession of gun holsters and mandating that only people with a DOT travel placard can carry ammunition in their cars, and so on and so forth.

Sadly opposing the effort to restrict our rights is like stopping a river of tyranny with a levee. Build up the wall with the 2nd Amendment , and the river rises to top it. Build the wall higher to safeguard our rights in the courts, and the river of disarmament scours the foundations and bedrock of the levee.

Southwest Chuck
01-31-2012, 4:47 PM
[/INDENT]
(2) appears to cover Vermont, Arizona etc that do not require license.
(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm

in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried..

Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

Erik.

Would this verbiage mean that a resident of Arizona could conceal carry in the other 49 States without a Carry license by vertue of his/her Arizona residency (via, say an Arizona Driver's License)?

:shrug:

yakmon
01-31-2012, 5:00 PM
i think we'd be better off with a win in Richards v Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto) preferably in SCOTUS.

vincewarde
01-31-2012, 5:10 PM
In 2011, the House approved, with my support, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Act, which would allow law-abiding citizens to responsibly carry firearms across state lines. The legislation would require states that allow concealed weapons permits to recognize other state carry permits for weapons, just as drivers licenses and carry permits held by armored-car guards are recognized. H.R. 822 now awaits consideration by the Senate.

This is a no brainer, even for strong supporters of state's rights (or it should be). This is an excellent example of why the founders inserted the "good faith and credit" clause in the constitution. States absolutely should be required to recognize permits issued by other states when people are in their state temporarily. Just as they must recognize contracts and driver's licenses. Too bad it probably will not pass the Senate and Obama almost certainly won't sign it.

I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2900, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act. This reciprocity measure, similar to H.R. 822, would also allow California residents to obtain a carry permit in another state and operate under that permit while residing in California.

As others have noted, this has even less chance of passing. In the future, if it did have a greater chance of passing, it could provide additional pressure for California to switch to some form of "shall issue".

CrazyPhuD
01-31-2012, 5:14 PM
I can just hear the complaint now: "But what about state's rights?" It's a crappy complaint, but there you have it.


States rights? They died in 1865...the commerce clause effectively allows the federal government to incorporate anything, for good or for ill.

CCWFacts
01-31-2012, 5:15 PM
That would be AWESOME!

It would be awesomely bad. It means that all our LTC court cases would be mooted and would evaporate in a puff of smoke. It means that if we lose one of our Five, and Democrats take back Congress at some future date, they could undo it and we would be SOL.

We want to win in court first, legislature second, because if we win in the legislature first, it means the court battle is deferred until some unknown future time. We do not want to defer that battle, because it's one we can win right now, and one which we probably could not win ten or twenty years from now.

Our future in the legislature (Congress) is not good. Due to demographic shifts in the US, it is likely that this country will be increasingly dominated by Democrats over the coming decades. What has happened in California is going to be the future of the rest of the country, barring some highly improbable policy changes, such as repealing birthright citizenship.

That's why we need to win it in the courts, within the next year or two, or else it will be a temporary victory.

Meplat
01-31-2012, 5:31 PM
This is the same guy who told me that internet poker was immoral and degraded family values and I would go to hell is I kept playing it.Go figure.

I doubt he said that.

Librarian
01-31-2012, 5:39 PM
Would this verbiage mean that a resident of Arizona could conceal carry in the other 49 States without a Carry license by vertue of his/her Arizona residency (via, say an Arizona Driver's License)?

:shrug:

That's how I read (2), yes.

Meplat
01-31-2012, 5:39 PM
That would be AWESOME! But if 822 didn't pass it's not likely this one would either.

Glad to see my Rep. signing onto some good bills though.

Perhaps another route would be to for the Feds to start threatening states or counties or LE agencies (like San Diego Sheriff Dept) with loss of any federal funding for not offering shall issue LTCs? Make eligibility for federal funding contingent upon LTC issuance on a shall issue basis?

With Obummer in charge? Don't hold your breath

Meplat
01-31-2012, 5:47 PM
i think we'd be better off with a win in Richards v Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto) preferably in SCOTUS.

We would be better off with both.

Gray Peterson
01-31-2012, 6:05 PM
As far as helping matters in California and other leftist-dominated centres of government in America anything imposed at the Federal level will only make matters worse. I keep repeating this quote because it states the attitude of those having the anti-rights perspective plainly and clearly. Dan Lundgren once stated that " If HR822 becomes law, the California Legislature will have NO CHOICE but to ban concealed carry entirely from state law".


Your ignorance of California politics, which I had to teach you about once before, is showing again.

1) the legislature passed a statute to streamline carry licensing process. If the were interested in a flat ban, why did they change the process to be better for applicants? Your read of the politics is way wrong.

2) though more counties such as Stanislaus, El Dorado, Sacramento, San Benito are issuing licenses for self defense, there is the 1/5th of the licenses issued are from difficult to acquire counties.

Do you think the CEO of Cisco is going to tolerate his license being nullified? Screw with his business? That's the cost of doing business in an area with lots of smart tech people.

Screw with allowing him to protect himself and his family after department closures his company has done? Him and his friends will wage political warfare in a post-Citizens United world....

The legislature knows this.. They won't do shall issue, but they will do little fixes like SB610 this session and AB 2022 back in 1998.