Is the "Nat'l Reciprocity Act" (HR 822) simply (back-door) "Gun Registration?"

[Tyme49]

Is the "National Reciprocity Act" actually nothing more than a way for the Feds to (slowly) implement National Gun Registration?

As a retired I.T. mgr., I know that, once you're in a database, your information can be readily 'mined' and distributed, ad infinitum!

Please take a moment to participate in my poll!

[Barth]

I don't trust anything on a national level.
All rights should be held by individual states unless there is no other option.

Florida already has reciprocity with a large number of states.
National Reciprocity is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES
Alabama (1,3,5)
Alaska (1)
Arizona (6)
Arkansas (1)
Colorado (1,4)
Delaware
Georgia (1)
Idaho (3,6)
Indiana (1,3,6)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (1)
Kentucky
Louisiana (1)
Michigan (1,4)
Mississippi (1)
Missouri
Montana (3)
Nebraska (1)
New Hampshire (1,3,4,6)
New Mexico (1)
North Carolina (1)
North Dakota (3,6)
Ohio (1)
Oklahoma (1)
Pennsylvania (1,4,6)
South Carolina (1,4,6)
South Dakota (1,3)
Tennessee (1,6)
Texas (1,3,6)
Utah (1,6)
Vermont (2)
Virginia (1,6)
West Virginia (1)
Wyoming (1,3)

[Bawanna]

Wow, can't visit Washington? Oh well, no great loss there anyhow.

At least you can visit Montana, and Wyoming. Tennessee and Missouri.

About the only places I'd care to visit anyhow. Not sure I can with a WA permit but don't really matter to me anyhow.

I'm a professional rule bender with the ability to completely ignore stupid rules.

[wyntrout]

Washington's Attorney General dropped Florida when our state decided that returning combat veterans under the age of 21 SHOULD be trusted to obtain CWP's! Most of those vets were probably 20, anyhow, or medically retired with combat injuries!

It's not funny how our military can be called upon to defend our country and its foreign policies with their very lives, but are denied the basic right of self defense when returning to our shores.

As best I can tell, this part of the law "790.06 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html)(2)(b) Is 21 years of age or older;"

Is exempted by

"
The 2012 Florida Statutes
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Images/dividers/600x3_gradient.gif


Title XLVI (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI)
CRIMES Chapter 790 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html)
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html) 790.062 Members and veterans of United States Armed Forces; exceptions from licensure provisions.—(1) Notwithstanding s. 790.06 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html)(2)(b), the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm under s. 790.06 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html) if the applicant is otherwise qualified and a) Is a servicemember, as defined in s. 250.01 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0250/Sections/0250.01.html); or
(b) Is a veteran of the United States Armed Forces who was discharged under honorable conditions.

(2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall accept fingerprints of an applicant under this section administered by any law enforcement agency, military provost, or other military unit charged with law enforcement duties or as otherwise provided for in s. 790.06 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html)(5)(c).
History.—s. 1, ch. 2012-108."





Wynn:)

[Bawanna]

I'd forgotten about that. While I think it's a fine gesture for Florida to make that gesture it's sad that enacting it has a negative impact nationally.

I have nothing but respect for veterans and active military but I would not have agreed to lowering the age. As you say most are at least 19 or 20 and not far away from the legal age. They still have legal access to rifles and shotguns, probably the tools they are most accustomed to anyhow.

To link this back to the original subject, I think rather than National reciprocity we'd be better to have a set of uniform guidelines. Any states that agree to the preset guidelines honor all other states that also agree.
Essentially the way it is now, except make it more reasonable.

The downfall is they would most likely incorporate the toughest states guidelines as the general guideline requiring instruction by some sort of recognized expert who is an expert cause he agrees to share profits with the state, quals on a regular basis at a fee of course. Etc Etc.

The whole idea of CPL's kind of rubs me the wrong way anyhow. I don't need a card to exercise the rights our forefathers guaranteed me. I'm fine with background checks and taking a fee for that, but no mall ninja training, and no quals or competency test. If I shoot myself in the foot, it's my bad.

[JohnR]

I believe HR822 has good intentions but like all unconstitutional laws, the unintended consequences will be anything from overregulation to back door registration.

[Jeremiah/Az]

I don't want the feds involved in state matters. I'm in Az. & we have gun laws just right!:D

[muggsy]

I support National reciprocity and so does the NRA. Here is what they have to say about the bill.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

[mr surveyor]

I do NOT support national reciprocity if the fed has anything to do with it. Texas has a pretty good system now, and more favorable changes in the works. A "national system" of any kind will no doubt take us in reverse by watering us down to some idiotic national "standard".

If y'all in the other 49 states (56 states by the count of "thu wun") want to come up with something you can all agree on as a national standard, then have at it.... I'll continue to stay home in my little nation state. I want absolutely NO more federal intrusion on my rights.

surv

[chrish]

Voted 'probably' because I agree w/ JohnR.

While it _might_ be well intentioned by the rinos and some of the middle of the road crowd on both sides of the aisle (including pro-gun dems), it will end up hurting rather than helping because in order to get everybody on board, they will have to heavily regulate the processing of issuing permits to make everybody happy that those w/ permits are adequately trained. Which means some federal government bureaucrat gets to decide yet again what I need to do with my time and money.

No thanks!

While I personally think training is a good idea, it is not Constitutional and it 'infringement'. Nothing they do in this regard will be good or helpful. Yes, there are states that I cannot (and will not) visit as a result...too bad, always wanted to see Yosemite...but not gonna happen in my lifetime I suspect.

The only 'national reciprocity' for concealed carry that I support is 'constitutional carry'. Repeal all gun regulation and let me carry open or concealed everywhere I go in all 50 states and US protectorates. Period.

[muggsy]

National reciprocity simply means that if you have the right to carry in your home state then you are allowed to carry in any state that allows concealed carry. It's the same as honoring the drivers license of another state. I believe that I have a right to carry concealed in any state without a permit as per the second amendment. We should be working toward eliminating the concealed carry permit requirement in all states as infringement upon our constitutional rights.

[tv_racin_fan]

National reciprocity simply means that if you have the right to carry in your home state then you are allowed to carry in any state that allows concealed carry. It's the same as honoring the drivers license of another state. I believe that I have a right to carry concealed in any state without a permit as per the second amendment. We should be working toward eliminating the concealed carry permit requirement in all states as infringement upon our constitutional rights.

As you may recall the driving standards and regulations were standardized in order to get the driving licenses recognized nation wide. I happen to believe that gun carry licenses will likewise have to be standardized in order for "Congress" to approve. Therefore I am not interested unless the standard will become the Constitutional Carry standard whereby I am not forced to ask permission of my or in fact any state in order to exercize MY right to keep and bear.

[chrish]

Also, driving is not a right. Gun ownership and bearing IS.

DLs are not honored based on federal legislation either, they are honored based on a national standard developed between the states via an independent organization.

I don't want the federal government involved in this. The Constitution and the 2A says they have to stay out of it. Many do not believe that. They are WRONG. That includes the SCOTUS and federal judges.

[muggsy]

Also, driving is not a right. Gun ownership and bearing IS.

DLs are not honored based on federal legislation either, they are honored based on a national standard developed between the states via an independent organization.

I don't want the federal government involved in this. The Constitution and the 2A says they have to stay out of it. Many do not believe that. They are WRONG. That includes the SCOTUS and federal judges.

The federal government includes the Supreme Court. I'd bet you'd be the first to scream for the Supreme Court to intervene if your State denied you your right to keep and bear arms. The 2A is a constitutional right.

[chrish]

The federal government includes the Supreme Court. I'd bet you'd be the first to scream for the Supreme Court to intervene if your State denied you your right to keep and bear arms. The 2A is a constitutional right.

Obviously the SCOTUS is part of the federal government. You missed my point. It's the SCOTUS job to tell the other two dip wad branches to stay out of my business when they get in my business. The 2A is not GRANTED by the Constitution, it is RECOGNIZED by the Constitution that we have it REGARDLESS of the Constitution. And I have been screaming for the SCOTUS to get their 9 collective heads out of there butts and rule that the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the States do not have Constitutional authority to muck w/ the 2A and regulate the crap out of it. All because the SCOTUS says I cannot have a sawed off shotgun doesn't mean they got it right.

Keep pushing for national reciprocity driven by the federal government and you'll get your wish.

If the States want to get together and come up w/ a plan to recognize each other's permits, fine. But the permits in and of themselves are unconstitutional to begin with. Period.

If the SCOTUS does anything here, and this is a pipe dream, they need to undo the damage they have already done and then turn around and vacate every gun law out there at every level of federal, state, and local government.

[muggsy]

Apparently you didn't take the time to read what the NRA/Ila had to say on National Reciprocity. I'll give you another opportunity. Of course, if you'd rather go through the legal hassles every time you cross a state line with a gun more power to you.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

[knkali]

Interesting points being raised. So some here feel if the gov is involved at any level, then they are ultimately screwed and tattooed. It is just a matter of when and how.

If the NRA backs it, I back it too.

[JohnR]

The income tax originally only covered people who made over a million dollars a year, which made up a minuscule percentage of the population, and the form was one page long. In 1913 there was no federal welfare, foo' stamps, social security, and the New Deal hadn't even come along yet.

I guarantee you if this bill passes, in twenty years it will have a thousand pages of mandatory requirements for concealed carry, none of which you will like.

[muggsy]

The income tax originally only covered people who made over a million dollars a year, which made up a minuscule percentage of the population, and the form was one page long. In 1913 there was no federal welfare, foo' stamps, social security, and the New Deal hadn't even come along yet.

I guarantee you if this bill passes, in twenty years it will have a thousand pages of mandatory requirements for concealed carry, none of which you will like.

Not if you vote the liberal progressive bastards out of office.

[chrish]

Apparently you didn't take the time to read what the NRA/Ila had to say on National Reciprocity. I'll give you another opportunity. Of course, if you'd rather go through the legal hassles every time you cross a state line with a gun more power to you.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

No, I read the NRA's position well before this thread started let alone before you posted. All because they back it doesn't mean I'm going to. The NRA isn't the be all end all authority on this issue. They are WRONG. They are using a false equivalent in the DL argument. No state is required by federal law to honor another states DL. It's a mutual agreement between states, just like a CCW permit right now. Furthermore, as I said, driving is not a Constitutional right, so not even in the same category.

You let them go down this path. We are all screwed. Next thing you know, the feds will make the argument...hey you gun toting bone heads, you told us it was like a DL, now we want your guns registered, annually taxed, annually inspected...along w/ your skills...just like your car and DL. Oh, and by the way, we are also gonna need you to carry insurance or pay the uninsured gun carriers fee.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Not the same thing. Not gonna back it. Anyone backing this, including the NRA, is way off the reservation w/ this one. Sorry.

Worst idea put forth by gun owners this century or last.

Fight for national Constitutional Carry...or leave it alone.

[chrish]

I guarantee you if this bill passes, in twenty years it will have a thousand pages of mandatory requirements for concealed carry, none of which you will like.

^ THIS, a million times over...

[tv_racin_fan]

Have you read the proposed amendments?

From Ms Jackson Lee;

"A person may not, under this section, carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state, unless the person provided at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the state of the intention of the person to carry or possess a concealed handgun in the state"

No telling what sort of amendments will be offered in the Senate.

[sas PM9]

Is the "National Reciprocity Act" actually nothing more than a way for the Feds to (slowly) implement National Gun Registration?

As a retired I.T. mgr., I know that, once you're in a database, your information can be readily 'mined' and distributed, ad infinitum!

Please take a moment to participate in my poll!



HR822 sounds OK in theory, but I reserve my decision until I see a final draft.

-steve

[mr surveyor]

Have you read the proposed amendments?

From Ms Jackson Lee;

"A person may not, under this section, carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state, unless the person provided at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the state of the intention of the person to carry or possess a concealed handgun in the state"

No telling what sort of amendments will be offered in the Senate.

Sheila Jackson-Lee is a complete moron, as the vast majority of Texans (as well as a majority in congress) knows ....the voters in her "district" just wants their free sh!t

[muggsy]

No, I read the NRA's position well before this thread started let alone before you posted. All because they back it doesn't mean I'm going to. The NRA isn't the be all end all authority on this issue. They are WRONG. They are using a false equivalent in the DL argument. No state is required by federal law to honor another states DL. It's a mutual agreement between states, just like a CCW permit right now. Furthermore, as I said, driving is not a Constitutional right, so not even in the same category.

You let them go down this path. We are all screwed. Next thing you know, the feds will make the argument...hey you gun toting bone heads, you told us it was like a DL, now we want your guns registered, annually taxed, annually inspected...along w/ your skills...just like your car and DL. Oh, and by the way, we are also gonna need you to carry insurance or pay the uninsured gun carriers fee.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Not the same thing. Not gonna back it. Anyone backing this, including the NRA, is way off the reservation w/ this one. Sorry.

Worst idea put forth by gun owners this century or last.

Fight for national Constitutional Carry...or leave it alone.

I never said that driving was a right, but I did say the the 2A was a constitutional right. The NRA has done more and has done it for a lot longer than any other gun rights organization. Just what exactly have you done to protect our constitutional rights. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1972 and have seen first hand what the NRA has accomplished. Excuse me, but I'll stick with the horse that has the best track record. That horse is the NRA.

[muggsy]

Have you read the proposed amendments?

From Ms Jackson Lee;

"A person may not, under this section, carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state, unless the person provided at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the state of the intention of the person to carry or possess a concealed handgun in the state"

No telling what sort of amendments will be offered in the Senate.

There are hundreds of amendments tacked on to every bill. Each amendment has to be voted on. If the the bill become burdened it will be voted down. It's your job to see that people like Ms. Jackson Lee aren't returned to office. That's our system of government. Learn to work it.

[muggsy]

HR822 sounds OK in theory, but I reserve my decision until I see a final draft.

-steve

+1 Written by a wise man.

[chrish]

I never said that driving was a right, but I did say the the 2A was a constitutional right. The NRA has done more and has done it for a lot longer than any other gun rights organization. Just what exactly have you done to protect our constitutional rights. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1972 and have seen first hand what the NRA has accomplished. Excuse me, but I'll stick with the horse that has the best track record. That horse is the NRA.

Good reasoning. So, if in 10 years the NRA is led by more moderate individuals than it already IS, your position will be to follow them into hell if they say 'lets go fellas'. So if they were to propose a national gun registry as an alternative to a more evil position taken by liberals and progressives, and we go further down this slippery slope, you are gonna say 'how high' every time they say 'jump'.

Gotcha. I understand.

I'll just apologize now, but I'm not seeing the wisdom in going down this path of national reciprocity pushed by the feds. Nothing the feds ever do turns out well, the last thing I want them doing is tinkering w/ my 2A right anymore than they already have. Do I want to be able to carry concealed in all 50 states...you betcha...but not if that means they (feds) have yet another set of 1000s of pages of regulations and rules and future amendments and government garbage tied to it. No thanks.

That's all I'm gonna say on the subject. I know I'm right on this one and the NRA is wrong.

[b4uqzme]

I believe the legal position on driving is that driving is a privilege. That's why licences, registration, insurance requirements, etc. are legal. 2A is indeed a right which makes reciprocity a complicated issue. The fed really only has the right to step into the issue if any state infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. They cannot force a state to honor any other state's carry laws nor force a state to agree to any national reciprocity agreement. At least not if the feds are honoring their duty to the tenth ammendment.

That is the core of our current dilemma. For too long we have tolerated the fed's involvement in what are really state or local issues. The framers intentionally limited the scope of federal government in order to preserve our freedoms. We are a union of individual states. Each with their own constitutions. If a citizen doesn't like the rules or opportunities in one state, they can freely move to another. It's a simple and beautiful system. Every time we let the fed add another law like this one, we just make it worse. The NRA is willing to lose this battle in hopes to win the war but I'm just not on board this time. This is even bigger than our 2A rights IMHO.

[chrish]

^ Bingo! This.

Thanks b4uqzme for framing this exactly as it should be. Sometimes we don't all get out exactly what we are trying to say. But your points are spot on in how this should be framed in a discussion/debate.

A whole steamin' pile of evil lurks in this one.

[b4uqzme]

Thanks chrish. Indeed it does. On a side note, I learned my distrust of federal involvement studying the (negative) economic impacts of federal regulation on individual markets. You see economics does have an application in the real world...(inside joke if you remember. I saw an opening and I took it). ;)

[chrish]

Thanks chrish. Indeed it does. On a side note, I learned my distrust of federal involvement studying the (negative) economic impacts of federal regulation on individual markets. You see economics does have an application in the real world...(inside joke if you remember. I saw an opening and I took it). ;)

Touche!

:D

[muggsy]

There is a difference between someone who has a healthy distrust of government and of someone who has an irrational fear of government. To which camp do you belong?

[chrish]

There is a difference between someone who has a healthy distrust of government and of someone who has an irrational fear of government. To which camp do you belong?

You should probably live somewhere in between. The latter are dangerous people that blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma. The former, in my experience, don't usually do ANYTHING about the problem other than complain and talk about thing things that irk them, then they return to their reality TV and multi-weekly bar outings to discuss their topic of the day.

Hopefully the former will eventually get it and join the rest of us in Tea Party groups, Libertarian groups (meh), etc. and work to clean house in the GOP of the good old boys that have ruined it.