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 91-120 of 138 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:58am

    Think about it – who has the right to define “criminal”? Government. Who wants to legislate our gun rights away? Government. If the 2nd Amendment only applied to “law abiding” citizens, the founders were wrong in their thinking their former government didn’t have the right to control access to arms. Therefore, not only wouldn’t they have been allowed to carry guns, all the present government would have to do is define criminal in such a manner that it applies to anyone they don’t want to have a gun.

    In addition, the original intent was that citizens had not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY to over throw tyranny. Unless citizens have equal access to arms as military, there wouldn’t be a way to defend against tyranny.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 10:50am

    Joe Libertarian – THANK YOU! I totally agree. The only laws that we should be passing regarding guns should be laws that just state they affirm the 2nd Amendment and thereby nullify any laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.

  • gilmorej3 04/23/2009 4:37pm

    I am very glad to see this. I have just received my concealed carry permit and have been concerned about how we are going to travel with my firearm. We often travel to the eastern side of our state and in order to do that many times we have to travel through another state that does not recognize my permit.

  • kevinmcc 05/07/2009 12:07pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I need clarification.

    “in a school”

    What is definition of school? Primary Education schools? Secondary Education school? College Education school?

    I do believe college students with a CC permit should be able to defend themselves on college campuses.

  • Comm_reply
    buckshotlee 05/19/2009 3:46am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Yes and yes! More clarification and if you are old enough to carry, then by all means, carry!

  • thorkyl 05/18/2009 10:38am

    I do have a few issues with this one, although it has good intentions, it has problems. Don’t get me wrong, I am a CHL.

    1 – It does infringe on States rights (those states that do not have CHL, which I will not go to anyhow)

    2 – a couple of the definitions are too broad such as passenger area of an airport or the area of restaurant that serves alcohol.

  • Comm_reply
    buckshotlee 05/19/2009 3:44am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I agree and don’t know what to do about it! I hope that we can get these errors on this one corrected before it gets passed!

    One thing that I haven’t see on Open Congress is how to help congress fix errors such as this one with revisions or amendments.

    If you know a then please let me know!

  • Comm_reply
    JohnF 07/22/2009 5:17am

    How does it infringe? It makes you comply with the state law from the state you are in not from the issuing state. It is just like the driver’s license.

    The catch-all provisions put restrictions in place for a state that has not enacted or repealed legislation regarding CCW’s. If the state has laws regarding restrictions, the state laws trump the federal catch-all wording. I am not aware of any state where this wording would be relevant.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:03am

    According to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is not left to the states to determine. It is a stated right in the Bill of Rights.

    Don’t get me wrong, I strongly support the 10th Amendment and I acknowledge (and oppose) the daily violation of it by the feds, but the Constitution clearly defines this right – there is no room for states to regulate it. There is no room for feds to regulate it either – or for them to validate the states’ violations of it.

    Alaska and Vermont realize that and have acknowledged and affirmed the 2nd Amendment. That is the battle that needs to be fought – getting states and the feds to affirm and uphold the Constitution on this (and other) issues.

  • pcfixer 05/22/2009 4:33am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I totally agree with the substance of this Bill.
    I cannot get a CCW because of Maryland law. Get the congressman
    in your state to vote for this bill and be a co sponser.

  • coral5353 06/11/2009 9:02am

    PRINCIPLE: AAGINST
    States Rights issue, not national.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:08am

    I disagree with you coral5353. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is clearly defined in the Constitution – our NATIONAL governing document. The 10th Amendment clearly states that rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

    I strongly support states rights – and unfortunately their rights are violated by the feds on a daily basis. However, both the states and the feds are wrong on this one. The only states that seem to understand the difference between a RIGHT enumerated in the Constitution, and a PRIVILEDGE that can be regulated by the states, are Alaska and Vermont.

    This bill, like all the others, is just another infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, and is therefore unConstitutional.

  • elsa41 06/29/2009 7:39am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    My dad is a long haul truck driver. Would this mean he could carry his concealed weapon across all the states he goes to without fear of being locked up for carrying a concealed weapon? How does this affect NY where you are not allowed to carry a weapon period?

  • Comm_reply
    JohnF 07/22/2009 5:02am

    A NY CCW holder can carry concealed. It clearly states that you would have to obey the laws of NY just as if you had a NY CCW.

    Since NY does not issue them very often. It seems in NY you would have more rights as a tourist than a resident. Ditto for CA.

  • bbqboy 06/29/2009 9:05am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Without the second amendment, ther would be no 1st or 3rd. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The reason we have guns is beginning to materialize. Tyranny is rearing its ugly head…

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:12am

    bbgboy – I agree that w/o the 2nd we wouldn’t have the 1st or the 3rd. But I would go on to say that w/o the others, we wouldn’t have the 2nd either. Current legislation being proposed, DISCLOSE Act, like the McCainFeingold fiasco, create laws that limit free speech. Without free speech, we can’t educate on the issue. If we can’t educate on the issue, we have an uneducated and uninformed citizenry. Freedom relies on an informed citizenry. You can’t expect to keep ANY of the RIGHTS enumerated in the Constitution unless you keep ALL of them.

  • kwjust99 07/02/2009 3:13am

    IF the bill is limited to allow CCW’s should honored like a drivers license. Meaning that your CCW license is valid in all other states. ANY ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL CCW LICENSE IS WRONG. The constution already grants ownership. The federal government should not be allowed such power. If it is granted control, there is nothing to stop some “agency” from infringing on our constutional rights.

  • wern55 07/09/2009 10:08am

    The constitution already grants ownership. Giving the fed control over CCW permits will just make it that much easier for them to eliminate all CCW permits in the future. Just stop making so many d*mn laws!!

  • CowboyRick 07/12/2009 10:53am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Think that the 2nd AMENDMENT applies to the individual which is beyond the FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, or any other “area” within the UNITED STATES whether the LIBERALs like it or not.

  • obamasucks1 07/14/2009 1:43pm

    I find myself more polite and tolerant of others when I’m armed. I’m not inclined to let something stupid escalate into a deadly force situation..Hence the phrase,“An armed society is a polite society.”

  • carolann 07/15/2009 4:25am

    I suspect this is expected to fly “under the radar” since everyone is worried about Healthcare “de-form” and Cap and Tax….this is our vigilance required by our founding fathers to keep our liberty..God help us! Should we re-enter a bill with the exact wording of the second ammendment? might be interesting…

  • Comm_reply
    JohnF 07/22/2009 4:58am

    A bill with the 2nd amendment wording would be an interesting one. :) It sure would weed out the anti-constitutionalists and give solid reference to persuade the people on the fence to take out their elected officials.

    I think this might work better by floating something a little less controversial… Maybe the 1st Amendment?

  • callagan 07/15/2009 9:09pm

    There is a good reason why Congress has buried this even though there were 142 co-sponsors. It has to get out of committee to get voted on, and probably won’t as long has we have the current leadership in the House. Ways and Means probably is blocking committee vote.

    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
    Thomas Jefferson – He understood liberty and the Constitution , hell, he helped write it.

  • JohnF 07/22/2009 5:34am

    Is there a way to get it through committee? Committees have been a stall trick used for far too long. The committees don’t have my Congress people so I don’t have any clout writing someone else’s Congress reps.

  • intruder09 07/24/2009 10:18am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Keep your chins up my fellow law abiding concealed carry comrades!S.845 was barely defeated by 2 lousy votes! If the traitors (Lugar,Voinovich) would have voted with their party,we wouldn’t even be here posting.NJ would have to kiss my butt.But, there are several more bills (197,1262,371)that just might make history if those two get their head out from between their legs. Angry in NJ

  • wbg2271 07/28/2009 10:37am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    Why is this a issue about undermining state rights. The second ammendment takes it out of the hands of the states. The state and the people have a say in anything not covered in the constitution or the bill of rights.( 10nth ammendment) This has nothing to do with a drivers license. The license to drive is

    a privelage which is a far cry from a consitutional right.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:16am

    THANK YOU sbg2271!! You stated it precisely right. This is not a states right issue. The whole states right argument is just something to divert from the real issue. A RIGHT that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution is NOT something left to the states to decide.

    I strongly support state rights. But that is not the issue here.

  • apache01 07/30/2009 5:14pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Well, first and foremost, any way the Federal government can take something like this OUT of the hands of the people, and their respectives states, then the Federal government can always over rule any decision than any state judge makes in court if it ever comes to that. Since the Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President, and voted on by each representative panel after inquisition, then the Supreme Courts rulings would be final. It’s simply to sway the tide more to their favor no matter what their political affiliation party. And yes, Drivers license are a priveledge, but so are licenses to carry a concealed weapon. Not everyone who can legally go buy a gun, can get a CWP! So it’s a priveldege as well. : )

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 11:21am

    apache01 – The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEDGE. It is a clearly enumerated RIGHT declared in the Constitution that can’t be “infringed.”

    Although, I will agree with you that the unConstitutional laws at both the state and federal level that INFRINGE on those rights are the anti-American attempts (succesful so far) to undermine that RIGHT and make it a PRIVILEDGE. Just because a law has been created doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it Constitutional.

  • carhac66 08/13/2009 5:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    this should apply to marriage as well. why are people so charged for gun rights but not freedom and equality? Oh, no money in it for weapons makers. sorry

    constitutional amendments allow us to have weapons and the states to regulate them. why is this bill needed?


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