PDA

View Full Version : S.2188: NOT DEAD YET! "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act" Introduced in Senate


doug-y-doug
03-13-2012, 8:33 PM
S. 2188 is the U.S. Senate companion bill to H.R. 822. It was introduced by Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). :D

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/right-to-carry-reciprocity-legislation-introduced-in-us-senate.aspx
It's helpful to include the bill number in the thread title.

No link to the bill at Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php) yet.

// Librarian

doug-y-doug
03-13-2012, 8:36 PM
We'll win this! First the Maryland decision:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-06/news/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306_1_gun-ruling-gun-rights-state-police

Now we have two Democrats introducing this to the Senate!!

Fyathyrio
03-13-2012, 10:11 PM
Links to text and some early analysis here. (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/03/nice-but-why-not-just-pass-hr-822.html) Hopefully this won't get assigned to the Judiciary Committee where HR 822 currently languishes. I suspect this may just be a ploy by a couple of D Senators from gun friendly states, Manchin is up for re-election this year...but we can hope it's for real.

smallshot13
03-13-2012, 10:21 PM
Suggest we wait and see what the actual bill says. I am suspicious of a pro-gun rights bill introduced by two democratic Senators. It may be fine, but the devil is always in the details. IMHO We have to read the fine print and obtuse references before we get behind it.

Librarian
03-13-2012, 10:42 PM
From the above link to No lawyers etc
12TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
S.
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the fol- lowing bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ____
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to- Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012’’.


SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United 4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C 5 the following:

§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
(1) the term ‘eligible individual’ means an individual who is not prohibited under Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and
(2) the term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identifying individuals.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and except as provided in subsection (c), an eligible individual may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State, other than the State of residence of the eligible individual, that—
(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

(c) CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An eligible individual carrying a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, except as to eligibility to carry a concealed handgun, that apply to residents of the State or political subdivision who—
(A) have a license or permit issued by the State or political subdivision to carry a concealed handgun; or
(B) if the State does not issue licenses or permits described in subparagraph (A), are not prohibited by the State from carrying a concealed handgun.

(2) IDENTIFICATION; LICENSE OR PERMIT.— An eligible individual who is carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall carry
(A) a valid identification document containing a photograph of the individual; and
(B) a valid license or permit that—
(i) is issued under the law of a State; and
(ii) permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm.

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—
The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Drivedabizness
03-13-2012, 10:50 PM
No chance - zip, zilch - unless it get's bundled with something that's a must pass.

Harry Reid will never let that happen.

And even if he did, Obama would veto.

Mstrty
03-14-2012, 1:11 AM
Didnt we get to 58-39 last time in the Senate?
51 requires Obama, 60 is veto proof.

E Pluribus Unum
03-14-2012, 1:12 AM
"Yet" being the key word....


I find it terribly ironic that the two sponsors of the bill are Democrats.... :)

AndrewMendez
03-14-2012, 1:21 AM
I don't see what the big deal about Democrats being the Sponsors is. Step outside California, and you will see TONS of Pro Gun Democrats.

Bert Gamble
03-14-2012, 2:00 AM
I don't see what the big deal about Democrats being the Sponsors is. Step outside California, and you will see TONS of Pro Gun Democrats.

Agreed.

You don't have to be an idiot to be a Democrat outside of California. It is still suggested, but not absolutely necessary.

press1280
03-14-2012, 3:06 AM
Looks the same(basically) as HR 822. The language of the bill is what's important, not necessarily the party of the sponsors(a Democrat was an original sponsor of HR 822).
Hopefully it doesn't go to the judiciary, but in the end it'll need to be attached to other legislation to get it over the finish line. But it is good that this thing is moving again.

OleCuss
03-14-2012, 5:03 AM
I don't think Harry Reid and/or the committee chairs will let the legislation advance. But if reciprocity got through the congress there is a pretty decent chance Obama would sign it.

Obama finding it politically necessary to sign off on reciprocity as the lesser of two political evils (from his perspective) is a nightmare for the Democrat bigwigs and that is why the Democrat leadership in the Senate will do their best to kill it in committee.

I rather expect the NRA to soon start doing whatever they can to start moving on this issue. I think May or June is about the right time politically, but it might be July. But if they think it is a political lost cause they may just allow it to languish and die.

CZ97B
03-14-2012, 7:04 AM
From the above link to No lawyers etc ...

The language of the statute says it applies to *nonresidents* of a state, not to state residents. If you are a resident of Cali then this will not help you in Cali. Only the non-resident visitors to Cali will benefit from this in Cali. Good for them. When they visit LA or Oakland from Arizona or Nevada, they might need it.

ubet
03-14-2012, 7:47 AM
With how the country is going right now, if this get to obummers desk, he will be committing political suicide if he doesnt sign this. If he signs it will increase his chance of reelection, if he doesnt I think it could hurt him in Nov.

wrdavis
03-14-2012, 9:16 AM
Our state's US senators supporting is about nil. But I emailed them anyway. I'd be worried if they supported it.

CalBear
03-14-2012, 9:27 AM
Didnt we get to 58-39 last time in the Senate?
51 requires Obama, 60 is veto proof.
Actually the veto override requires 2/3 majority in both houses. 60 is the filibuster number.

mdimeo
03-14-2012, 9:48 AM
Didnt we get to 58-39 last time in the Senate?
51 requires Obama, 60 is veto proof.

People keep saying we almost got there, but we really didn't. It's been pretty well documented that quite a few of the yes votes would have turned into no votes if there had been a possibility of passage.

On the bright side, when antigun politicians have to pretend to be progun to keep their seats, that's a good sign right there.

Decoligny
03-14-2012, 1:13 PM
The language of the statute says it applies to *nonresidents* of a state, not to state residents. If you are a resident of Cali then this will not help you in Cali. Only the non-resident visitors to Cali will benefit from this in Cali. Good for them. When they visit LA or Oakland from Arizona or Nevada, they might need it.

When every tourist from out of state is exercising their 2A right in the state of CA, it will lend strength to any lawsuit to try to force shall issue.

DrDavid
03-14-2012, 1:17 PM
I wrote to both of my senators about this. I'm pretty sure neither Feinstein nor Boxer will be supporting anything that makes any sense..

How do we get rid of them?

OleCuss
03-14-2012, 1:44 PM
I wrote to both of my senators about this. I'm pretty sure neither Feinstein nor Boxer will be supporting anything that makes any sense..

How do we get rid of them?

Be a member of the Republican Party and go to all their meetings and work toward getting viable libertarian candidates to run and to be supported.

The alternative is go be a member of the Democrat party and do the exact same thing.

fd15k
03-14-2012, 2:07 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S2188:@@@T

rivraton
03-14-2012, 2:08 PM
Actually the veto override requires 2/3 majority in both houses. 60 is the filibuster number.

Yep, 67 is the magic number.

SDM44
03-14-2012, 4:35 PM
From the above link to No lawyers etc
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and except as provided in subsection (c), an eligible individual may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State, other than the State of residence of the eligible individual, that—
(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.


If I'm reading that right, then it sounds like that you can have a non-resident CCW permit (I'll use a UT permit as an example), then it will be eligible in CA.

I've heard Cam Edwards at NRA News also mention something similar, but he wasn't 100% sure on that if it was fact/law or not. And I would assume that we would need a CA permit in order to carry in CA.... which leaves some of us 'beach' counties still SOL for now.

Any other info or written law/rule about this?

Fyathyrio
03-14-2012, 4:52 PM
If I'm reading that right, then it sounds like that you can have a non-resident CCW permit (I'll use a UT permit as an example), then it will be eligible in CA.

I've heard Cam Edwards at NRA News also mention something similar, but he wasn't 100% sure on that if it was fact/law or not. And I would assume that we would need a CA permit in order to carry in CA.... which leaves some of us 'beach' counties still SOL for now.

Any other info or written law/rule about this?
An eligible person under this bill is somebody who has a LTC from their home state and carries in another state. It doesn't really help us here in CA except for those few that have a CA LTC. Non resident LTC doesn't count for the purposes of this.

CCWFacts
03-14-2012, 5:15 PM
My proposal on this is that the Senate should use a discharge petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition) to get this out of the committees. This is the kind of thing that the Democrats want to kill quietly using committees. I know discharge petitions are rare but it could be a fit for something like this: the majority of the Senate wants to pass it but the party leaders want it to die quietly.

Librarian
03-14-2012, 5:19 PM
If I'm reading that right, then it sounds like that you can have a non-resident CCW permit (I'll use a UT permit as an example), then it will be eligible in CA.


No, you are reading it incorrectly. To carry in the state where you live, you need an LTC from THAT state (or, like AZ and AK and VT, the state does not require one.)

If you live in CA and have a non-res UT LTC, under this provision you could carry anywhere BUT CA. (Except a state that issues NO CCW and is not AZ, AK, VT - Illinois?)

SilverTauron
03-14-2012, 5:23 PM
Remember guys, the passage of the bill may in fact make things WORSE for you gun owners in California.

I watched the House debate on H.R. 822 from work all the way up here in South Dakota, and will never forget the insane words uttered by your Representative Dan Lundgren on the subject of H.R. 822. He stated point blank that if the same bill were to be passed as law, California's Legislature would have NO CHOICE but to recall CCW entirely and revert to the same system Illinois uses;namely no CCW for anyone. In so doing, they would "retain control of who is armed in their state" by ensuring no one could carry legally no matter where their CCW comes from or the status thereof.

Nothing I have seen in this board regarding the behavior and thought process of your State Legislature would lead me to think he was bluffing.

CZ97B
03-14-2012, 5:30 PM
I wrote to both of my senators about this. I'm pretty sure neither Feinstein nor Boxer will be supporting anything that makes any sense..

How do we get rid of them?

You would need to give them both sex-change operations first.

Only then the women of California would stop voting for them.

In the meantime we are outnumbered, whether Deem or Reep.

Gray Peterson
03-14-2012, 5:33 PM
Remember guys, the passage of the bill may in fact make things WORSE for you gun owners in California.

I watched the House debate on H.R. 822 from work all the way up here in South Dakota, and will never forget the insane words uttered by your Representative Dan Lundgren on the subject of H.R. 822. He stated point blank that if the same bill were to be passed as law, California's Legislature would have NO CHOICE but to recall CCW entirely and revert to the same system Illinois uses;namely no CCW for anyone. In so doing, they would "retain control of who is armed in their state" by ensuring no one could carry legally no matter where their CCW comes from or the status thereof.

Nothing I have seen in this board regarding the behavior and thought process of your State Legislature would lead me to think he was bluffing.

Repeating yourself multiple times, especially after you've been told multiple times that what you're saying cannot happen, & you even agreeing with me after being explained to on this?

CCWFacts
03-14-2012, 5:40 PM
Repeating yourself multiple times, especially after you've been told multiple times that what you're saying cannot happen, & you even agreeing with me after being explained to on this?

Yeah, there's no way they can repeal our may-issue law. And if they did that would make our court cases even cleaner and easier. They would also create the risk of a judge turning California into "Vermont carry" by not staying a decision at some point in the future. It's totally impossible.

OleCuss
03-14-2012, 6:09 PM
Remember guys, the passage of the bill may in fact make things WORSE for you gun owners in California.

I watched the House debate on H.R. 822 from work all the way up here in South Dakota, and will never forget the insane words uttered by your Representative Dan Lundgren on the subject of H.R. 822. He stated point blank that if the same bill were to be passed as law, California's Legislature would have NO CHOICE but to recall CCW entirely and revert to the same system Illinois uses;namely no CCW for anyone. In so doing, they would "retain control of who is armed in their state" by ensuring no one could carry legally no matter where their CCW comes from or the status thereof.

Nothing I have seen in this board regarding the behavior and thought process of your State Legislature would lead me to think he was bluffing.

I don't care whether he was bluffing or not. He was wrong.

Even though I have great contempt for the intellect of our legislature, even I don't think they are even close to that stupid.

SilverTauron
03-14-2012, 6:29 PM
Repeating yourself multiple times, especially after you've been told multiple times that what you're saying cannot happen, & you even agreeing with me after being explained to on this?

It is not a matter of a misunderstanding.

Put simply when a leftist is backed into a corner they typically do not see logic any better then they did before. Chicago stands as a great example of this: despite a SCOTUS ruling against them the city still stands in the way of legal gun ownership.

What will your power hungry Legislature do should this bill be signed into law? What will the leftist members of the same body consider when their electorate is clamoring for new laws to prevent the unwashed hoards from out of state with CCW permits from carrying guns in public within California! I can see the mayor of San Fransisco dropping dead of fright just thinking about the concept.

Part of the problem with your state's standing with the Bill of Rights is that the voting majority in CA are solidly opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Will such a population stand mute at the idea of a Federal law allowing anyone BUT them to carry a weapon concealed in California? Can anyone on this board state with confidence that your State government wouldn't consider pulling CCW to be more like Illinois, courts and the Feds be da**ed?

Believe me I'm not ignoring what you guys are saying.I simply think we are making the mistake of applying logic and forethought to people who don't think any further than the next election campaign.

OleCuss
03-14-2012, 6:54 PM
I actually consider it highly likely that someone in the legislature would introduce legislation banning all carry. They will certainly think about it.

But it would likely die in committee. If it didn't die in committee it will likely be killed on the floor. If they somehow got it through the legislature it would likely be vetoed.

If it wasn't vetoed I would celebrate! Oh, it would be a pain in the rear for a little (I have a carry license), but we'd likely go to court to assert our right to bear arms and success would be nearly a lock. This would likely mean unlicensed carry in pretty much whatever manner one wished.

I only wish our state government was that monumentally stupid.

Gray Peterson
03-14-2012, 9:10 PM
It is not a matter of a misunderstanding.

Put simply when a leftist is backed into a corner they typically do not see logic any better then they did before. Chicago stands as a great example of this: despite a SCOTUS ruling against them the city still stands in the way of legal gun ownership.

What will your power hungry Legislature do should this bill be signed into law? What will the leftist members of the same body consider when their electorate is clamoring for new laws to prevent the unwashed hoards from out of state with CCW permits from carrying guns in public within California! I can see the mayor of San Fransisco dropping dead of fright just thinking about the concept.

Part of the problem with your state's standing with the Bill of Rights is that the voting majority in CA are solidly opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Will such a population stand mute at the idea of a Federal law allowing anyone BUT them to carry a weapon concealed in California? Can anyone on this board state with confidence that your State government wouldn't consider pulling CCW to be more like Illinois, courts and the Feds be da**ed?

Believe me I'm not ignoring what you guys are saying.I simply think we are making the mistake of applying logic and forethought to people who don't think any further than the next election campaign.

I'll say it once last time:

1) You have no knowledge at all of California politics.

2) Dan Lungren is a blowhard who will say anything to get re-elected ever since his district was redistricted into unfriendlier urban territory. He wanted a way to have it both ways. Politically, he's a dead man walking....

3) Dan Lungren is not and, let me repeat, NEVER been a member of the California Legislature See his Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Lungren).

4) All of the carry license holders in the urban areas (Save Sacramento County) are extremely politically powerful. Now that Reserve Officers and special deputies now must go through POST training classes, all of these politically powerful types cannot do that, so they must get civilian LTC's.
Do you think for a second that they will allow the Legislature to REPEAL this law?

I can see the mayor of San Fransisco dropping dead of fright just thinking about the concept.

The Legislature doesn't give a **** what Ed Lee thinks, or Ross "Wifebeater" Mirkarimi thinks, either.

monk
03-14-2012, 10:03 PM
I doubt President Obama would sign it. Chances are he'll cite State's rights as his reasoning behind it.

mrrsquared79
03-14-2012, 10:07 PM
Is it me or is Gray full of piss and vinegar today? :)

Gray Peterson
03-14-2012, 11:56 PM
Is it me or is Gray full of piss and vinegar today? :)

I'd post a picture "Awww, Geez, not this **** again", but I think Kes banned it....

Baja Daze
03-15-2012, 1:59 AM
Remember guys, the passage of the bill may in fact make things WORSE for you gun owners in California.

I watched the House debate on H.R. 822 from work all the way up here in South Dakota, and will never forget the insane words uttered by your Representative Dan Lundgren on the subject of H.R. 822. He stated point blank that if the same bill were to be passed as law, California's Legislature would have NO CHOICE but to recall CCW entirely and revert to the same system Illinois uses;namely no CCW for anyone. In so doing, they would "retain control of who is armed in their state" by ensuring no one could carry legally no matter where their CCW comes from or the status thereof.

Nothing I have seen in this board regarding the behavior and thought process of your State Legislature would lead me to think he was bluffing.

Even as whacked out as the Kaliforniastan legislature is these days, this will NOT happen. There are simply way too many "elites", politicians, wealthy, well connected, Hollywood types etc. that currently posess a CA LTC for this to occur.

Kind of the epitome of hypocracy, hell even diane notsofinestein had a CA LTC at one point. The "elite" here will never give up "their" 2A rights!

Mulay El Raisuli
03-15-2012, 6:31 AM
Even as whacked out as the Kaliforniastan legislature is these days, this will NOT happen. There are simply way too many "elites", politicians, wealthy, well connected, Hollywood types etc. that currently posess a CA LTC for this to occur.

Kind of the epitome of hypocracy, hell even diane notsofinestein had a CA LTC at one point. The "elite" here will never give up "their" 2A rights!


And this is the important point. Lungren will certainly try to outlaw CCW, but he wont get anywhere.


The Raisuli

jbl_1967
03-15-2012, 1:58 PM
No chance - zip, zilch - unless it get's bundled with something that's a must pass.

Harry Reid will never let that happen.

And even if he did, Obama would veto.

Reid owns guns and I am willing to be he has crossed state lines with them on more than one occasion.

I think the NRA would call him out on on this if he had it buried, especially since 2 Dems introduced it. Considering his last election fight, I don't think he really wants to piss off the NRA any time soon.