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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 121-138 of 138 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:24am

    Where in the Constitution is there an amendment that allows states to regulate weapons? No where. There has never been an amendment that overturned the 2nd Amendment which states the right to keep and bear arms can’t be infringed. Look up the definition of infringe – any law that in any way limits our rights to keep and bear arms is an infringement.

  • CowboyRick 08/14/2009 3:14pm

    Now, this is really GOOD!!! If Congress passes this that will mena that they are Still “By the People, For the People”, what a consept!

  • CowboyRick 08/17/2009 5:46pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    With the passage of HB 1388 this will be needed for safety!

  • CowboyRick 08/17/2009 5:47pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    I wonder why we were not alerted about HB 1388-this gives “HAMAS” the right to come into this country and live here!

  • Comm_reply
    Margiefeet 08/23/2009 12:47pm

    The only thing I can find on HB 1388 is the Edward Kennedy Service act. Also I am unable to locate the bill that gave Congress an automatic raise every year. Can you help me with these 2 bills?

  • rightontarget 09/29/2009 8:52pm

    While supporting this bill…feeling it may be needed due to opposing legislation that has been introduced. I question anything that gives us permission to something we already have a right too, anything that makes legal what is already legal, and anything that makes illegal what is already illegal.
    What am I not understanding? Better yet….what are our congressional employee’s not understanding? But hey, if it keeps me from having to pull over and put my clip in the trunk inorder to be “law abiding” in every other state I travel through…then carry on!

  • mywhitehouse 10/02/2009 7:29am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    All of these clowns are corrupt, that is why they don’t have a Corruption Elimination Bill, please sign our petition. The right is only mad because the left now has the control of the corruption. All this effort and none on the true problem. The ones speaking up should have done so a LONG time ago!

    http://mywhitehouse.org/dont-tread-on-me/

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:32am

    I agree that nothing can have a more positive affect on homeland security than a large percentage of armed citizens. However, requiring permits to be armed violates the Constitution. If it is just known that ALL of our citizens have the right to keep and bear arms – uninfringed – the potential that EVERY CITIZEN is armed goes up dramatically.

    If the potential exists that any and every citizen is carrying a weapon, criminals and terrorists alike would think twice. Since right now, in most instances, they are the only ones armed, (since they don’t follow the law anyway) they definitely have the advantage.

    BTW – early in our country’s history, not only was it allowed to have weapons, in some communities it was required that you have them, have them on you, loaded and ready to defend your family and community AT ALL TIMES. It was considered not just a RIGHT, but a responsibility to defend yourself, your family and your community.

  • LastStand300 11/06/2009 4:42am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    FINALLY a bill that “WE THE PEOPLE” support. This bill makes sense so I bet those lazy fat, thieving, lying, self-centered,morons on capital hill won’t vote yes for it. If that &%$#@!&^%$ Pelosi and other nimrods have their way they would take all guns away from us and then only the crooks (them) will have guns. I have called my senator and rep several times concerning this bill, so please contact yours and tell them to vote YES

  • mjbanks 11/19/2009 6:01pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    this will simplify state to state gun rights and transfers. but non-citizens of a state include foreigners. only Americans are to have firearm privileges.

  • rogerlmartin 12/14/2009 1:36pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    agreeing with fellowamerican and may i point out “Keller VS DC” should have ended any questions.
    Vermont should be the example on this one

  • gray1326 12/15/2009 12:11pm

    anybody know of any interest groups for/against this bill? Im writing a paper for a US Politics class

  • dtkr 02/15/2010 1:33pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    We already have this right, Amendment 2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Amendment 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Amendment 9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    To much control over our lives, less gov’t, far less laws.. We have 25 times the amount of laws on the books already. Many ways can murder be murder, thieft be thieft.. ect….
    Just my opinion however.

  • Dickhead 07/06/2010 9:56am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Switzerland, every household is issued a weapon. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. Let every ENGLISH speaking, Law abiding American with NO felonies carry what ever and where ever he/she wants.

  • Watchemoket 07/14/2010 11:45am

    Why did the Founders start the 2nd Amendment with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state …?”
    What ‘regulations’ did the Founders envision, and were only land-owning whites considered part of the militia? How about women?
    Bring on the negative votes, but I really would like to read some intelligent responses to these questions.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:46am

    Watchemoket- I have to answer this in at least two parts, because it takes more space than allowed.

    First of all, the militia at that time referred to the people, not to the military. The people, voluntarily, defended their lives, liberty and sacred honor. Well-regulated means that if you don’t have the means, ability and equipment to do the job, you can’t. If you’re not armed to the same degree, trained to the same degree, as your enemy (or potential enemy in the case of a tyranny rising) then you have less chance of defending against it.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:47am

    2nd part – The militia was not limited to land owners. I do believe it did not include women at the time, since women didn’t have much of any rights at the time, and in many instances were considered their husband’s property. Women were not allowed to join the military then either.

    In my opinion, however, the 2nd Amendment applies to all “the people”, as we would define people now, including women. If it didn’t, then black people couldn’t be armed either since, at the time, they also were legally considered property, not people.

    The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed. While the definition of “people” has expanded, the RIGHT has not changed.

    Would love to hear your thoughts on the issue.


Vote on This Bill

94% Users Support Bill

3238 in favor / 223 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments