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 1-30 of 138 total comments.

  • Alven 01/25/2009 6:02am

    This will simplify legal requirements for traveling to different states

  • Comm_reply
    ShuRugal 03/09/2009 4:49pm

    Amen to this. I just got my VA CCW permit a month ago, and was moderately irritated to find out that i can only carry with it in one neighboring state.

  • Comm_reply
    jbeyes 06/24/2009 4:18am

    And not all of our neighboring states!!! I recently got my VA CC permit also….be sure to check the laws before you cross into another state carrying.

  • Anonymous 01/26/2009 4:55pm

    Hooray! It’s about time.

  • Anonymous 01/26/2009 5:11pm

    Maybe the last couple of hold out states on CWP will finally get the hint.

    it’s a common sense law and I appluad those that have introduced it. hopefully it will past and be another road black to the Gun-Banners.

  • amrich35 01/26/2009 6:24pm

    I will be sure to ask my Rep. “Rooney”, to sign on to this bill.

  • woolval 01/27/2009 2:44am

    As a CWP license holder who travels, this bill will allow me the right to legally carry through other states. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my family and myself self defense protection from potential criminals. Thank you for this bill.

  • jayarbrough 02/11/2009 7:03pm

    As a Concealed Carry Permit instuctor I know that this will help us achieve unifomity in the laws, which will eliminate a lot of confusion !! Weall want to be safe and adhere to the laws, we just need to be able to know what they are !

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/22/2009 6:13am

    Seems you’re worried about the next election and Republicans gaining a “win”, so you really do have some sense of the outrage.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    cateyes200 06/26/2009 12:55pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    and dead people. i wonder if my cat fluffy voted.

  • Comm_reply
    gemma_trimm 12/21/2009 9:35am

    What are you talking about? (I actually want to know, I’m not being condescending or anything.)

  • Euclid_543 02/17/2009 12:05pm

    The natural right of a human being to defend theirselves makes this a perfectly logical bill. Too bad we have to have individual laws when our 2nd Amendment rights have already been “certified” by the Supreme Court.

  • Comm_reply
    melzellers 03/21/2009 1:34pm

    Amen brother!

  • Comm_reply
    jazz836062 03/25/2009 9:03am

    Amen. “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.”

  • Comm_reply
    janetharper 09/12/2009 9:02am

    AMEN

  • Comm_reply
    gemma_trimm 12/21/2009 9:36am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    PLus isn’t this addressed with the Full Faith and Credit Clause which states that all state laws must be respected by every other state?

  • soonertracker 02/18/2009 2:01pm

    The only thing holding me back from supporting this is that, if this passes, then the states loose the ability to decide their own CCW laws, and could a rouge Congress just “do away” with the federal CCW laws?

  • Comm_reply
    theSaj 03/12/2009 9:38am

    I am not too worried about that, because states are still the deciding power in allowing the carry law. And nothing with this bill prevents a state from loosening or allowing non-permitted concealed or open carry.

    It just mandates that CCW permits be treated in like fashion as driver’s licenses. (Imagine if you needed to have a driver’s license for each state you drove in, or a non-resident’s license…unless your state had reciprocity. But said reciprocity changes constantly. No one would drive out of state. Or we’d just break the laws.)

    When you put it in that perspective, it becomes very sane. Not all states have the same requirements for a driver’s license. But all states recognize each other’s driver’s license.

    Maybe it needs to be a designation. Class A carry permit. As I know some states have a variety of sub-licenses (ie: farm licenses that allow a 13 yr old to drive).

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:06am

    I agree with the intent behind this law. However, I can’t support it. It allows a state to define who is a CCW, and then (nationally) only a CCW permit holder can carry. This is an infringement, which violates the 2nd Amendment. “the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.” It doesn’t say it can’t be infringed at the Federal level (by Congress), it says it can’t be infringed, PERIOD.

    This law is an avenue to validate, at the Federal leve, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment is adhered to, there is already reciprocity nationwide, because any law that violates the right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional. Validating a law that compromises the 2nd Amendment weakens it.

    I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, but we need to focus on uplifting and confirming the 2nd Amendment. Any law that recognizes an infringement doesn’t do that.

  • Comm_reply
    thorvaldr 04/23/2009 2:31pm

    It doesn’t say that. It says that they have to honor each others permits. But yes a ROGUE congress could, has, and does, do away with whatever of your rights they want. This just isn’t one of the times that they are doing that.

  • Comm_reply
    cklaszky 05/02/2009 3:34am

    I too was worried about the implications to individual States’ rights with this bill, and then I thought about it a bit more. First off.. the 2nd Amendment states that the right to keep AND BEAR arms “shall not be infringed”. Meaning that technically everyone should already be legally allowed to carry. States that do not “allow” their citizens to carry concealed or otherwise, are infringing on their citizens’ rights.

  • Comm_reply
    cklaszky 05/02/2009 3:34am

    2)
    The 2nd Amendment aside, look at this like a driver’s license. My driver’s license is issued in Florida, but allows me to drive in Florida and NJ.. and the rest of the United States. My CCW permit is issued in Florida, and through reciprocity legislation agreements among several states, allows me to carry in those states. It does NOT allow me to carry throughout the U.S. This bill would treat the CCW permit essentially like the driver’s licenses we all hold. This would eliminate a great deal of confusion when traveling from state to state by establishing essentially one set of requirements for ALL states. It would also disallow the infringement of the rights of citizens of the states that currently do not “allow” CCW.

    This is a good, and simple piece of legislature.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:37am

    I have to disagree on this point cklaszky. A drivers license is not a right protected by the Constitution. In the short term, it looks like an easy fix. In the long run, it will end up as a loss to freedom. The “essentially one set of requirements for ALL states” that you refer to is already in place – it’s the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is inviolate. Anything that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional.

    If we want a law at the federal level that acknowledges this, we need a law that specifically cites the 2nd Amendment as the supreme authority and that, as such, any law at the state or federal level that infringes upon that right is unConstitutional and hereby nullified, rescinded, etc.

    I strongly support the 10th Amendment also, but not in this area. The 2nd Amendment clearly defines this as a national issue. It is not one of the issues left to the states.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:22am

    You’re right cklaszky! Those laws already infringe. But any process for getting a CCW is also an infringement, because it negatively affects “the people’s” right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment didn’t say, "can not be infringed as long as you have a CCW. By validating the idea that either the federal or state governments have the right to infringe, we weaken the 2nd Amendment.

    If we feel the need to pass redundant laws in order to support the 2nd Amendment, we need to push, at both the state and federal level, to pass laws that acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as the supreme authority, and as such, no laws on the books, that in any manner infringe on that right, are invalid as they violate the Constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 9:15am

    YES!! By supporting laws that “infringe”, we are opening doors to further infringements … even when they are laws that APPEAR to support the 2nd Amendment.

    If we want a law that really supports the 2nd Amendment, why not wording that says something to the effect of … “whereas the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed, and whereas CCW processes infringe on people’s 2nd Amendment Rights, and whereas any state not recognizing (in any manner) the right of the people to keep and bears arms is a violation of the Constitution and whereas we are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, THEREFORE this law hereby declares that (as stated in the Constitution) ANY law that violates the people’s right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional and is hearby nullified, overturned, rescinded, etc.”

  • Anonymous 02/19/2009 9:02am

    this law does not give Congress or the federal government the right to set law on right to carry. it says the just like states recognize a drivers license from other states and that the drive has a right to drive a car while in the other state. This bill states that a state must recognize the right of an individual to carry in a conceal maner even if that state does not issue conceal carry permits.this law would in effect defeat the opression of denying conceal carry in states becuase their citizens could get a CCP in another state and thier home state would HAVE TO HONOR IT!!!!!!!DC residents could get a CCP in Virginia and DC could not prevent them from carrying on DC streets. It’s a beautiful Law.Hope it passes

  • Comm_reply
    JohnF 07/22/2009 4:18am

    Not the case. The CCW would have to issued by your home state. Currently I have a NV and UT permit. I will no longer need my UT permit as UT will be required to respect my NV permit.

    For my friends in CA, there is not a snowball’s chance that CA will issue them a permit so their only option will be to permit each state individually and not carry in their home state. Their NV, UT, FL permit will not be honored in CA as they are a CA residents.


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