U.S. Congress - H.R.197 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
H.R.197 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
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. view all titles (3)
All Bill Titles
- Short: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: 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. as introduced.
- Official: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 61-90 of 138 total comments.
that’s doubtful, but i am one of his students.
and proud to be so.
I think i would like a definition of a national standard before the votes are taken on this one, At this point in time we need to watch them with both eyes. But done prorerly it can be good.
This bill doesn’t make a national standard, it just makes states honor each others permits.
Sounds good. I hope it passes. These bills are—I’m not sure of the word I’m looking for—but some bills are trying to take our guns away and then there’s ones like this one. Good grief.
PC way to carry? That’s an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp and honest politician. The only PC way to carry would be disarmed and defenseless. Lets just support allowing everyone’s right to carry as they please.
i have no issues with people carrying how they like. I just don’t think there should be stipulations between the 2. Open or concealed there should be no legal difference. I should be allowed to carry however I please.
Like in Denver. You can carry concealed with a permit but if your gun accidentally shows they can and will haul you in. We should be allowed to open carry.
Jizzle is right here. The 2nd Amendment states no “infringement” is allowed. Which means any law that says you must carry concealed or that you must carry open, or that you can’t carry at all
-any law that infringes your rights-is unConstitutional.I believe there is no distinction in Alaska. The way it should be.
r4fthrs – you got it here. There is no PC way to carry. The ultimate goal is disarmed citizens. If we truly support allowing everyone’s right to carry as they please, we need to support the 2nd Amendment fully, not these bills that undermine it.
Back in the 90s I was long haul trucking and I had a 357 revolver in my sleeper and I don’t know for sure what the laws in each state was. I usually loaded in California then unloaded in Detroit or Chicago, then went to Florida and reloaded for British Colombia . I figured that sleeper was my home and I could protect myself in my home. Two times within a year I had to let my gun be seen to prevent getting mugged, once in a truck stop in Spokane WA. and once in a rest area in Indiana on I-90. That was my last year of long hauling, it just wasn’t fun anymore, but I was able to get to my family in Oregon alive anyway, even if I wasn’t totally legal..
If I can get a permit to drive in any state, I should be able to get a permit to carry in any state. It just makes sense.
eklofton – it doesn’t make sense to need a permit to carry at all when a carry permit of any kind is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree it doesn’t make any sense that we allow such violations of the 2nd Amendment to exist, but that doesn’t make bills like this one sensible either.
Open carry and concealed should be covered by the same permit system and the method in which you choose to arm is a matter of personal preference. I think one open and concealed back up is ideal. Just my opinion.
I agree there, an open carry Glock 9mm, and conceal carry Desert Eagle for backup for me.
There shouldn’t be a permit process AT ALL!! It is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. These bills and arguments are just diversions from the real issue. The 2nd Amendment has no exceptions. It doens’t say that the right to keep and bear arms is protected as long as you go through a permitting process. ANY permitting process, and all regulations that in any way infringe on “the peoples” RIGHT to keep and bear arms, are unConstitutional.
I like the general concept of the law. However, I wonder if this will give the gun grab crowd a later chance of very strict national gun laws. I don’t mind the regulation as it stands with CCW. We are talking about a vetting process, shooting exam and other qualifications. The standardized rules would be nice so I know where I cannot carry.
I view it an important form of protection though to carry since Police have been ruled by the Supreme Court that they don’t “have to” protect us. They are just there to write a report. Hopefully in the report they will say you are alive.
if they are going to grant carry nationwide then everything should be included. IE airports/trains/buses et. They should issue it similar to a drivers license and each person should be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES IE if you are going to board a plan, you should have your hollowpoints stowed and provide yourself with your own frangible ammo for the duration of your flight as to not endanger other individuals. 9-11? I think not. That would have ended with the headline “Mass terrorist plot thwarted by 2nd Amendment/xx (insert number here) Terrorists Apprehended!” But, no, how many people died? What a waste.
there’s something I agree on, i everything were included on 9-11-01, that tragedy would have been a triumph, and the 2nd Amendment would have had quite and Aegis Shield to wield against he Gun-Banners. But no it’s the other way around.
I’m old enough (60) to remember when you could get on a plane without any screening, and you could pack on airlines, because it was no big deal.
This bill has as much chance of passing as the Republican party has of winning back the majority. Gun control is coming back, so adjust for that.
Exactly the same chance…..GOOD!.
Anonymous? Anonymous? How courageous.
It’s about time something like this passed. I don’t know if it will or not, but it has a much better chance than newmeximan claims, because both parties now have plenty of pro-gun people in them. The Dems are finally starting to learn that if they want to stay in office, they have to take a more pro-gun stance. (unless of course they’re from MA, NY, IL, or CA)
We already have a national concealed carry law … The Second Amendment. Rather than creating new laws, which simply confuse things, affirm The Second Amendment.
A permit is easier to carry than a copy of the constitution and easier to read.
In Vermont and Alaska you don’t need a permit or a copy of the constitution. In those states American citizens can keep and bear arms, concealed or open, just like it says in the constitution. I like that better.
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms but do you think the right is absolute? Think about it. Do you think convicted, gun-related felons should have the rights that an honest citizen has? Do you think you should be able to own your own nuclear ICBM’s?
JohnF – I do think that right is absolute. Think about it – the founders that wrote the 2nd Amendment wrote it in response to their former government’s (England) violations of their rights to keep and bear arms. In response, they declared independence and became (in the eyes of the established government of the times) treasonous criminals. If they really intended the 2nd Amendment to apply only to law abiding citizens, they would have stated that.