H.R. 1243 Nat'l mandatory reciprocity?

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

H.R. 1243 Nat'l mandatory reciprocity?

Postby gigag04 » Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:49 am

First I've heard of this bill, found when googling something else.

H.R.1243
Title: To amend title 18 of the 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.
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] (introduced 3/10/2005) Cosponsors (72)
Latest Major Action: 5/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01243:)

I read a write-up that said it would make the "Full Faith & Credit" clause apply for Concealed Carry permits, just as it does for marriage licenses, drivers licences etc.

Which would mean any permit that you rightfully have issued to you is good anywhere in the US, except for airplanes....

Charles et al - you guys know anything about this?

-nick
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
User avatar
gigag04
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5469
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

another though

Postby tomneal » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:27 am

For a long time I have prefered that the Feds keep their hands off of gun laws.

Even Pro Rights, gun laws.

Our side seems to be doing a good job of getting the laws corrected at the state level but there seem to be a lot of Anti Rights politicians in Washington. I am a little concerned about them getting involved.


On the other hand.
I would like to see the Feds forced to recognize CHL's from all states.
See you at the range
NRA Life, TSRA Life, USPSA Life, Mensa (not worth $50 per year so it's expired)
Tom Neal
User avatar
tomneal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Houston

Postby jimlongley » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:47 am

We shouldn't need a law to make "full faith and credit" apply.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Re: another though

Postby gigag04 » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:34 am

tomneal wrote:For a long time I have prefered that the Feds keep their hands off of gun laws.

Even Pro Rights, gun laws.


I fully see your point and agree. My line of thinking shifted while reading about the H.R. 218 bill allowing national carry for LEOs.

If a law was passed to have CCW/CHLs qualify under "Full Faith & Credit" then it isn't really a gun law, just a mandatory recognition of a state issued credential right?

-nick
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
User avatar
gigag04
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5469
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Postby gigag04 » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:36 am

jimlongley wrote:We shouldn't need a law to make "full faith and credit" apply.


+1 :sad: Just like we shouldn't need laws defining marriage is between one man and one woman.
Last edited by gigag04 on Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
User avatar
gigag04
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5469
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:59 am

I don't think we'll ever see a national reciprocity law passed. However, if it is, I would much prefer to see it based upon the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution, rather than the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, as was HR218 and the new federal gun-free school zone statutes.

The Commerce Clause has been perverted to an extreme, being used as a justification for the federal government to do virtually anything it wishes. We now have at least 3, probably 4 and possibly 5 U.S. Supreme Court Justices that want to rein in Congress' reliance on the Commerce Clause to do that which the Constitution does not otherwise allow. If that happens, laws like HR 218 and the new federal gun-free school zone statutes will fall to Constitutional challenge.

Regards,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12911
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby KBCraig » Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:53 pm

I strongly oppose this, just as I strongly opposed LEOSA (even though I personally benefit from it).

The answer isn't to keep adding federal laws. The answer is to start deleting vast portions of the U.S. Code. The 1986 machinegun ban should be first, since it was the first federal law to actually ban gun ownership by the populace at large. Then I'd go for NFA '34 and GCA '68, since all federal controls rely on those two acts.

Somewhere in the midst of this, people might rediscover that quaint thing known as the Constitution, and the inalienable rights it proposed to protect.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Postby Tom » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:34 pm

KBCraig wrote:I strongly oppose this, just as I strongly opposed LEOSA (even though I personally benefit from it).

The answer isn't to keep adding federal laws. The answer is to start deleting vast portions of the U.S. Code. The 1986 machinegun ban should be first, since it was the first federal law to actually ban gun ownership by the populace at large. Then I'd go for NFA '34 and GCA '68, since all federal controls rely on those two acts.

Somewhere in the midst of this, people might rediscover that quaint thing known as the Constitution, and the inalienable rights it proposed to protect.

Kevin


Amen Brother!

Very Best Regards,

Tom
Tom
Member
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:32 am
Location: NW Kerr County

Postby Baytown » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:26 am

I think KB and I found something we agree on.

I have never understood why a DL from TX is honored in NY, but not a CHL.

I have always said I hate federal gun laws. If H Clinton and Chuck Shumer have a problem with the people in NY having guns, then so be it, but don't tell us in Texas how we need to do things.

At least state laws allow people to move to free states, but when they make fed law, where can you go??

Glenn
Winners never quit, and quitters never win; but, if you never win, and never quit, you're a moron.
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby jimlongley » Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:34 am

Baytown wrote:I have never understood why a DL from TX is honored in NY, but not a CHL.

Glenn


It was fairly recently, in historical terms, when the states didn't recognize each others' driver's licenses and even marriage license.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Postby OverEasy » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:27 am

Another $.02,
What about our 14th Amendment??
Sec 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty,or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


My understanding is that the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil
War to ensure that (1) the newly freed slaves were granted full and
equal rights as U.S. citizens.
(2) That States could not disarm Blacks to prevent them from
defending themselves. The 2nd Amendment specifically being an
issue, because at he time the "Night Riders" were seizing guns and
other property from the "ex-slaves".

The debates prior to passage of the 14th centered around the "ex-slaves", now citizens, having "The right to keep and bear arms".
So that they could protect themselves thus insuring their "Life", "Liberty" and "property"

My point: The 14th Amendment DID provided the newly freed "ex-slaves" with all the protections of the Constitution especially the 2nd
Amendment. (Yes I know that it took almost 100 years for complete implementation in all states)
So why does the 14th Amendment that allowed the Blacks to arm themselves for self protection in 1868, not allow ALL U.S. citizens today to arm themselves for self protection?

We don't need a Commerce Clause or a new federal law. We have
a Constitution! We need a Supreme Court that will enforce the
provisions of that Constitution for ALL citizens in ALL states!!

Look out, if I have caffiein or too much sugar I can really get going!
I swore to uphold and defend that Constitution, haven't quit!
OE
NRA
TSRA
JPFO
American Legion
USN (69-77)
What did you expect?
OverEasy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:02 pm
Location: NW of Houston

Postby KBCraig » Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:40 pm

One thing that gets tossed around a lot is the notion that "CHLs should be covered by Full Faith & Credit, just like DLs!"

Which would be fine, except that DLs aren't covered by FF&C. States recognize each other's DLs by an interstate compact, where they agreed to do so. It works just like reciprocity, and the feds didn't have to pass a law to make it happen.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: H.R. 1243 Nat'l mandatory reciprocity?

Postby rp_photo » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:53 am

CHL should be just as consistent as driving, and the majority of exceptions to where one may carry need to be considerably reduced.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
rp_photo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: H.R. 1243 Nat'l mandatory reciprocity?

Postby pbwalker » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:59 am

wow...old thread
Owning a gun is like owning a fire extinguisher. Neither makes you a cop or a firefighter, but both give you and your family a way to hold the line against death until reinforcement arrives.
*NRA Life Member*
User avatar
pbwalker
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2820
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Bulverde

Re: H.R. 1243 Nat'l mandatory reciprocity?

Postby Purplehood » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:12 pm

Why the sudden spate of 2006 topics popping up again?
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
User avatar
Purplehood
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Next

Return to Federal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest