The perrenial National Carry bill...H.R. 226

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

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply

All those...

In favor, say Yea?
29
74%
All opposed, Nay?
10
26%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar

Topic author
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

The perrenial National Carry bill...H.R. 226

#1

Post by stevie_d_64 »

H.R. 226, introduced by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), 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. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar

Mithras61
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:43 pm
Location: Somewhere in Texas

#2

Post by Mithras61 »

It isn't what I'd really LIKE to see (unrestricted carry), but it'll do.
User avatar

Topic author
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#3

Post by stevie_d_64 »

From what I have read and understand over the years concerning this issue...

They have cleared up the chance that the Feds could use and abuse this from a registration, and potential infringement risk...

To one that is simply requiring the states to recognize CCW licenses similarly as Drivers Licenses...They either can or won't, and eventually they will as we have done DL's...

Just thinking this is jsut another "baby step" forward...

I'm sure there is still enough to debate to the pros and cons of this bill, but since its still a bill, there is time to vote it up or down...

I believe it deserves its day on the floor...

But it is rather funny it'll be on a floor that may, or may not be too kind to it either way...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

kw5kw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

#4

Post by kw5kw »

I'd have to say, If I can drive in Calfiornia or New York on my Texas DL, why can't I carry in the same with my Texas CHL?

This would allow me to do just that.

Russ
Russ
kw5kw

Retired DPS Communications Operator PCO III January 2014.
User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

#5

Post by jimlongley »

kw5kw wrote:I'd have to say, If I can drive in Calfiornia or New York on my Texas DL, why can't I carry in the same with my Texas CHL?

This would allow me to do just that.

Russ
It wasn't all that long ago that you couldn't - and the same goes for your ham radio license. If you are a licensed cosmetologist in NY, your license is not good for even a transfer to IL, but is for TX, and your TX license is good for a transfer to IL.

So much for "Full faith and credit."
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

#6

Post by KBCraig »

Absolutely no. Keep the federal government out of it. Once they have their paws in, there will be further "clarification", and that won't be good.

Drivers licenses aren't recognized in other states because the federal government says so. They're recognized because the states agreed to do so, just as states are working out recognition of concealed handgun licenses. They didn't get there overnight with DLs, and you shouldn't expect instant universal coverage with a CHL, either.

Kevin

RKirby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:58 pm

#7

Post by RKirby »

Absolutely no. Keep the federal government out of it. Once they have their paws in, there will be further "clarification", and that won't be good.
Gotta agree...keep the feds out of this at all cost. This is an issue to be worked out amongst the states...no need for federal intervention and, especially not, federal regulation of CHL's.
"Superior firepower is an invaluable tool when entering into negotiations." - G. Patton

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

#8

Post by KBCraig »

I think it was about 70 years between the time the first DLs were issued, and universal recognition. South Dakota didn't even issue licenses until 1953!

If anyone thinks the federal government wouldn't take over the handgun license business, just take a look at what they're doing with DLs. The ID required to get a DL is already excessive, and we're on the doorstep of "RealID", which the feds intend to mandate to the states. (They've already issued the mandate, but the requirement for implementation hasn't come yet.)
User avatar

GlockenHammer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:17 pm

#9

Post by GlockenHammer »

Okay, so I voted first and then read the posts. I think I'm back to "nay". I'd rather give up CA and NY than have the Feds involved in licensing. Heck, drive to Space Center Houston with your Leatherman in your toolbox and you are violating Federal Regulations and the US Criminal Code. (Just pray that you didn't piss off anybody there that would like to give you a hard time!)

RKirby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:58 pm

#10

Post by RKirby »

I'd rather give up CA and NY than have the Feds involved in licensing.
No argument from me on that point...those are two states on my short list of "avoid at all cost" states. Ms's Feinstein and Clinton can have 'em. After all, the liberals have to be somewhere, right? Better to consolidate them in a few areas where we can keep an eye on them.

Been to CA and NY too many times over the years and have no plans to ever return again to either if I can help it!
"Superior firepower is an invaluable tool when entering into negotiations." - G. Patton

lrb111
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

#11

Post by lrb111 »

I don't think we have enough info about this.

The Driver's Licence scenario is a good one because it illustrates how the Feds do business. All states had to have their programs comply with a set of standards. The Feds held out a carrot and stick over federal highway funds.
No compliance, no money.

We currently have no idea what reward/penalty system the feds night have for state regulations on chls.
Texas certainly doesn't have a weak program, at "10 minimum hours" for certification. But there are stiffer programs. Most are weaker. Our program would probably be among the top level.

Some of the Texas benefits of a CHL would be nice across state lines. Like no NICS, with no waiting when visiting gun shows, and gun shops. :grin:
IF that was the way it worked out. :???:
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor

O6nop
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Austin

#12

Post by O6nop »

The biggest (only?) advantage, to me, would be standardization of rules and restrictions. As it is now, you have to study the laws of the state you are travelling to. If you get it wrong, by means of interpretation, then you are in trouble. Remember when only certain states had right-turn-on-red after stop? Now you can drive through any state and the laws are pretty much standard. I think states still have say in who or how old or things like that. I heard Texas may restrict the minimum age and/or the maximum age for driver's licenses.

stroo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Coppell

#13

Post by stroo »

I would just as soon keep the Feds out of licensing carry. Once the camel gets it nose under the tent, who knows what will happen. We could suddenly be back to California and New York style laws nationwide.
User avatar

GlockenHammer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:17 pm

#14

Post by GlockenHammer »

stroo wrote:I would just as soon keep the Feds out of licensing carry. Once the camel gets it nose under the tent, who knows what will happen. We could suddenly be back to California and New York style laws nationwide.
That is my fear. The lowest common denominator.
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”