TexasCHLforum.com

There was a bill dead in committe to coerce states into recognizing other states CHLs (provided they had one of their own) much like driver's licenses. Any hope on getting this resurrected? What killed it last time?

There was a bill dead in committe to coerce states into recognizing other states CHLs (provided they had one of their own) much like driver's licenses. Any hope on getting this resurrected? What killed it last time?

We should let any bill like this die the death it deserves. Once the feds get involved in anything, it's like the camel under the tent. The federals will then make demands on the states to make all licenses alike, much like the nationwide driver license bill now becoming law.

I agree with elpaso45.

I don't want the federal government involved in this... Unless they're going to be enforcing the law that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Fair enough. It also seems that our AG is actively establishing reciprocal agreements. I hear we just got Pennsylvania and one of the Carolinas.

With PA, I now count 25 states where we can carry concealed with a Texas CHL. (23 requiring a license plus VT and AK). I'm sure we'll get several more over the next few years.

From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
To: tim@4fraziers.com
Received-On: Today 5:50 PM
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

Dear Mr. Frazier:

Thank you for contacting me regarding national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

S. 388 was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on January 25, 2007, and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This legislation would provide a national standard by which properly licensed nonresidents of a State could carry concealed firearms in the State. An equivalent bill, H.R. 861, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 6, 2007.

I strongly believe in our Second Amendment rights and the continuing need of an effective means for people to defend themselves and their property. In the last Congress, I introduced S. 1082, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would have restored Second Amendment rights to the District of Columbia. Currently, the District of Columbia has a prohibition on using guns for self-defense in one's home. This is the result of the Firearms Control Regulations Act, passed in 1976 by the D.C. City Council, which required that firearms kept at home be rendered useless. My legislation would have restored the right to self-defense in an individual's home in the District.

Unfortunately, my bill did not receive consideration before the conclusion of the 109th Congress. However, I intend to reintroduce the measure in the 110th Congress in order to preserve the Second Amendment rights of our fellow citizens who reside in the District of Columbia. Should S. 388 or H.R. 861, come before the full Senate, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
To: tim@4fraziers.com
Received-On: Today 5:50 PM
Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

Dear Mr. Frazier:

Thank you for contacting me regarding national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

S. 388 was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on January 25, 2007, and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This legislation would provide a national standard by which properly licensed nonresidents of a State could carry concealed firearms in the State. An equivalent bill, H.R. 861, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 6, 2007.

I strongly believe in our Second Amendment rights and the continuing need of an effective means for people to defend themselves and their property. In the last Congress, I introduced S. 1082, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would have restored Second Amendment rights to the District of Columbia. Currently, the District of Columbia has a prohibition on using guns for self-defense in one's home. This is the result of the Firearms Control Regulations Act, passed in 1976 by the D.C. City Council, which required that firearms kept at home be rendered useless. My legislation would have restored the right to self-defense in an individual's home in the District.

Unfortunately, my bill did not receive consideration before the conclusion of the 109th Congress. However, I intend to reintroduce the measure in the 110th Congress in order to preserve the Second Amendment rights of our fellow citizens who reside in the District of Columbia. Should S. 388 or H.R. 861, come before the full Senate, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Paladin wrote:I don't want the federal government involved in this... Unless they're going to be enforcing the law that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

I want the Federal gov't to be involved. I want them to step up and take back the role they are given under the Constitution. They need to make all licensing and limitation of arms illegal. The system is un-Constitutional in its current form. The states should be given no jurisdiction over my 2A right. And the Feds need to start enforcing the fact that it is illegal to do so. The Feds can't take it away, but they can sure punish those who try.

You must acknowledge though, that concealed carry wouldn't exist at all if left to the federal government.

I would certainly hope that was the case.
I shouldn't be forced to conceal my weapon to exercise my right.

Admitedly, I used to be a "national reciprocity" freakazoid years ago...

And in someways it still makes sense from a stand point of the simple concept of "full faith and credit" standpoint in how DL's are recognized...

But I believe the base for the DL consideration was grounded upon an ID necessity for Law Enforcement...Thats how that got passed the oligarchy...

Our CHL's and other license ssytems in other states that have them is one of those horse pills that not everyone in every state take advantage of...

Remember this is all a choice, and some people (a great majority) choose not to do so...

We have the advantage that we live in a state that is pretty good about supporting about 1% of its population and their choice to exercise this right, and the reciprocity agreements we have, and the few left we are trying to hammer out are working pretty good so far...

I believe there are improvements that can certainly be made, but I am not going to hold my breath hoping the Feds come up and wrap there arms around us for that big group hug...Know what I mean???

"He that can be huggeth, can be squeezethed to death."

Ohhhh, thats a good one...Somebody write this one down!