Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • GMG
    Calguns Addict
    • Dec 2008
    • 7974

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

    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.
    Last edited by GMG; 01-31-2012, 1:27 PM.
    sigpic

    A member of The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
  • #2
    bulgron
    Veteran Member
    • Jul 2007
    • 2783

    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.
    sigpic

    Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

    Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.

    Comment

    • #3
      Rossi357
      Senior Member
      • May 2010
      • 1229

      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.

      Comment

      • #4
        lrdchivalry
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2007
        • 1031

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

        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.
        Last edited by Librarian; 01-31-2012, 2:27 PM.
        Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
        --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

        Comment

        • #5
          ShootinMedic
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2009
          • 826

          Sounds good on the surface, but I don't see it passing.
          Originally posted by Untamed1972
          ... the POV of courts and legislators needs to be....if an item can have a lawful purpose then you can't criminalize the item, you can only criminalize unlawful acts committed with that lawful item.

          Comment

          • #6
            Untamed1972
            I need a LIFE!!
            • Mar 2009
            • 17579

            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?
            Last edited by Untamed1972; 01-31-2012, 2:00 PM.
            "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

            Quote for the day:
            "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

            Comment

            • #7
              stix213
              AKA: Joe Censored
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Apr 2009
              • 18998

              I don't see it getting anywhere in the Senate, but I like it. Lets see what eventually happens with HR822 first though.

              Comment

              • #8
                Southwest Chuck
                Senior Member
                • Jul 2009
                • 1942

                Here is the text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...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?
                Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 01-31-2012, 2:15 PM.
                Originally posted by Southwest Chuck
                I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
                Originally posted by toby
                Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
                ^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

                Comment

                • #9
                  Librarian
                  Admin and Poltergeist
                  CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                  • Oct 2005
                  • 44627

                  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.’.
                  Last edited by Librarian; 01-31-2012, 2:24 PM.
                  ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

                  Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Window_Seat
                    Veteran Member
                    • Apr 2008
                    • 3533

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

                    Erik.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      bulgron
                      Veteran Member
                      • Jul 2007
                      • 2783

                      Originally posted by Window_Seat
                      Passage of this could would lead to an effect of something very scary.

                      Erik.
                      What effect might that be?
                      sigpic

                      Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

                      Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Common
                        Member
                        • Mar 2011
                        • 177

                        Originally posted by Window_Seat
                        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!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Untamed1972
                          I need a LIFE!!
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 17579

                          Originally posted by Window_Seat
                          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?
                          "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

                          Quote for the day:
                          "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            bulgron
                            Veteran Member
                            • Jul 2007
                            • 2783

                            Originally posted by Untamed1972
                            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.
                            sigpic

                            Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

                            Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Untamed1972
                              I need a LIFE!!
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 17579

                              Originally posted by bulgron
                              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.

                              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?"
                              Last edited by Untamed1972; 01-31-2012, 4:14 PM.
                              "Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

                              Quote for the day:
                              "..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1