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 31-60 of 138 total comments.

  • Spam Comment

  • Anonymous 02/20/2009 9:07am

    I thought I read where each states concealed carry laws would be applicable and one would have to know the laws of the state they were going to travel to. I hope I misread that because if one has a concealed carry permit, all one needs to do is carry and not have to worry about being legal regardless of where they may go. Churches, schools and even D.C. for that matter. I reiterate Euclid 543 concerning the second amendment but the supreme court is/will be the problem as long as they can interpret the Bill of Rights to suit their political ambitions.

  • Comm_reply
    carljn 03/03/2009 1:41pm

    That seems true. But its like a drivers license: if you live in PA and drive into OH, you are bound by the rules of the roads in Ohio. And unless you do something blatantly against the law like bringing your gun into a school, they’re not going to say anything technically. Hopefully it will extend like a drivers license being that your car, registered in another state, has to comply to the laws of the state it is registered in, thus being that because I’m a resident of say Texas, Illinois gun laws won’t apply to what weapons I can own.

  • indgosky 02/23/2009 7:53pm

    Common sense. Simple Standard. Less permit holder confusion. Less ENFORCEMENT confusion. 10th amendment notwithstanding, this would be a good thing and hopefully this is something which ALL states would participate in to keep things simple for a change.

  • rzoller16 02/25/2009 9:58am

    I fully support this bill and hope it passes and is signed. The Congress needs to realize people that legally own a gun go above and be on to follow all laws. The real problem is illegally owned guns by felons that are in gangs and so forth (i.e. Chicago). Chicago’s crime rate wouldn’t be as high if they had concealed carry. As for individual laws per state and city governments it never hurts to find out what is legal and what isn’t.

  • Comm_reply
    fellowamerican 06/15/2009 5:27pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This bill seems like a back door attempt at Federal Gun Control. Yes, I agree we the people have already been given the right to bear arms by our forefathers blood and bravery, yet should we give, even interstate gun control to the Government? SEE BELOW:

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    OR; Article IV states:
    Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    So, we already have the applicable right to bear arms in any state. So, who really needs this bill? The lawmakers and Federal pockets that will be filled by, Registration costs paid by us to be put on a Gun ownership list and kept track of Federally.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:51am

    THANK YOU fellowamerican!! You are absolutely right. The right to keep and bear arms (concealed or not) is already protected by the Constitution for ALL citizens – no matter which state you live in.

    I support the 10th Amendment and agree that the feds overstep states’ rights on a daily basis. However, the Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed – at any level. It is not delegated to the US because it is protected by the Bill of Rights, but it is “prohibited by it to the states”. Neither the feds or the states have a right to infringe.

    As you said, we already have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the country. This bill actually limits the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms by validating the infringements already on the books.

  • waynec 02/26/2009 4:41pm

    If your Congressman’s name is not on the list of co-sponsors, get on the phone with them and tell them you want them to support this bill. Get your Senators on S371 also.

  • GunnyG 02/27/2009 9:03am

    About frigging time.

  • JoeFunsch 02/28/2009 8:59am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This was supposed to happen years ago as well but somehow got through the cracks. I agree with the bill fully but you watch and they (the banners) will figure a way to make current CCW’s ‘non-compliant’ and voided until you get the new ‘Federal CCW’ which will have a waiting list as long as the pork lines in D.C.

  • Comm_reply
    thorvaldr 04/23/2009 2:34pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This bill doesn’t create a “new ‘Federal CCW’” it just makes states honor each others CCW.

  • Jerzo35 03/03/2009 10:07am

    About time!!! When is anyone gonna realize that gun permits should be for the entire U.S. and not just an individual state. It is our rite from the second amendment and for each state to be able to make any rule they want about pesessions of firearms is bogus. I understand that you would still have to abide by the laws of the state you are in when carrying but it is a step in the right direction.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:57am

    This is NOT a step in the right direction. This law only validates the infringements against our 2nd Amendment rights that are already on the books.

    If the 2nd Amendment truly applies to the individual, and it is a Constitutional right (which means at the NATIONAL level) any law in any state that restricts that right violates the 2nd Amendment.

    Any law in any state that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Constitution. So the idea that, even if you have a federal CCW, or a CCW from any state that must be acknowledge through reciprocity, is also a violation because it infringes on that right.

    It’s not a right if you have to qualify for it.

  • r4fthrs 03/03/2009 3:56pm

    What needs to be kept in the front of this argument is the fact that crimes committed by permit holders is far below the general population even in states with `easy’ regulations. In compairison to law enforcement officers it is almost equal.
    Also why can we excersise an non-constitutional right (driving) easier than a constitutional insured right (firearms). Hello! McFly! Jefferson is spinning in his grave!

  • Comm_reply
    Jizzle 03/06/2009 6:09am

    One thing that hurts the anti-gunners so badly in our eyes is speculation (the oh, if he said it he must have done his homework so there for it’s true), which is a fallacy. If you are going to state things for instance that can be backed up with facts please back them up to refute any critisism from those opposed to our cause. For instance links or what magazine/newspaper you recieved the information from. Thanks much.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:00am

    Thanks you r4fthrs! I agree that it is a very sad state of affairs that we can exercise a non-constitutional right like driving easier than we can our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    It really shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that the intent of our founders was that our Constitutional rights were intended to be inviolate. Yet, on a daily basis, we get people who say they support the 2nd Amendment, yet are happy to support legislation that actually violates it because it’s easy and simple.

  • Jizzle 03/06/2009 5:53am

    It’s a step in the correct direction. Concealed carry is nice but, open carry is much better.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:05am

    It’s NOT a step in the right direction. I do agree with you that open carry is much better - because that is the intent of the 2nd Amendment – open, concealed, however you want to carry. We need to be pushing for acknowledgment at ALL levels that the 2nd Amendment is our “right to carry.”
    When we validate laws that in any way infringe on our right to carry according to the 2nd Amendment, we weaken the 2nd Amendment.

    Legislation that infringes in any way should not be supported.

  • dondoc2comcastnet 03/09/2009 11:41am

    Any carry is a good thing. I think it is MY right to decide to carry if I want to. Bad boys be gone! Just like cops, I know I am not one but I am on there side. Bad boys would love for this bill to fail.

  • NonSheeple 03/09/2009 1:26pm

    This is common sense. Be nice if we could have a national fishing license too. Anyway, a person should be able to travel across the country or a neighboring state and be able to defend ones’ self. At the moment, that is not practical or legal due to the differences in each state’s laws. I strongly support this citizen empowering legislation.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:27am

    This legislation does not empower citizens. It actually takes a Constitutionally protected right and defines (infringes) WHO can exercise their right to keep and bear arms – which means it is no longer a RIGHT, but a priviledge. It then goes further to define HOW and WHERE you can exercise that right - again making it a priviledge.

    The differences in each state’s laws, the fact that there are laws regulating (ie: infringing) our RIGHT to keep and bear arms are unConstitutional. It isn’t common sense to give up our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms by supporting legislation that violates that right.

  • r4fthrs 03/09/2009 4:56pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    I believe that for tactical and security reasons concealed carry is superior to open carry due to the following; In a hostile situation the obviously armed people will become the primary targets, it is easier for the hostile to assess his tactical advantage. Uniforms and open carry only dissuade the non committed. It is much harder to pull off an objective when you can’t figure all the factors in play. It also allows the defender to act on his terms and not the hostiles. (it also doesn’t make the John Q liberal as nervous – what he doesn’t know.. might kill him)

  • Comm_reply
    Jizzle 03/10/2009 4:56am

    weak excuse for concealed carry. you just don’t wanna deal with the weird looks you get for observing your 2a rights. man up.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:33am

    Whether it’s just a weak excuse or tactical planning, the point is that the 2A protects our right to carry however we want to carry. We who support the 2A need to man up, as you said, and push for recognition of our RIGHT instead of supporting legislation that makes keeping and bearing arms a priviledge for those who go through the process to get a CCW, and who are then subject to further regulation on how and when they can carry.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:30am

    Again, r4fthrs, I agree with you. Tacticallyl speaking, you don’t want potential bad guys to know you’re armed. You want them to wonder if ANYONE, or better yet, EVERYONE, is armed – the potentiality of it deters. Open carry, in many situations can make you a target. However you choose to carry though, it is your RIGHT to carry. Any laws that infringe on that right violate the Constitution.

    I love your John Q Liberal comment. :)

  • r4fthrs 03/10/2009 2:16pm

    Jizzle – As a Paramedic and ex-swat medic, I just hope you are the one packing his big hogleg standing next to me (but not to close)at the bank during a hold up. While they are distracted filling you full of lead I’ll neutralize the hostiles and then patch you up ;). Remember a real man doesn’t have to show every one what he’s packing (if you know what I mean)

  • Comm_reply
    Jizzle 03/11/2009 6:45am

    : ). I’ll be there. But, I’ll tell you what. It’s not about what or where or how you carry. It’s about keeping your head on a swivel. And being in condition and being able to switch from condition yellow/orange/red without hesitation. And being aware of what condition you need to be in. You can’t defend yourself against a threat that you are not aware of. So, if you need that extra time to get to your gun because you’re conceal carrying that’s cool I’ll gladly end the situation while your still trying to figure out who’s who.

  • Comm_reply
    Grobare 03/19/2009 11:30pm

    “You can’t defend yourself against a threat you are not aware of.”

    I think you just made the argument for concealed carry right there.

  • Comm_reply
    Jizzle 03/20/2009 7:24am

    concealed carry is just the PC way to carry.

  • r4fthrs 03/12/2009 2:16pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Jiz…..Oh my ### your JEFF COOPER! back from the dead!!!! I kneel at your feet totally unworthy to be in your presence :)


Vote on This Bill

94% Users Support Bill

3237 in favor / 223 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments