National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#46

Post by VMI77 »

EconDoc wrote:If the feds can force one state to accept another state's CHL, then they have both the authority and a reason to force all states to accept "national standards" on who can have a CHL. If they force "shall issue" that would be very good, but, if they require "may issue with good cause" then it could wipe out 25 years of nationwide progress on CHL in a stroke. My opinion is that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd would try to do, and it would be more difficult to combat if we had nationwide reciprocity by federal law. Think this through and keep in mind that the anti's have already introduce such a nationwide "may issue with good cause" bill in congress.

Exactly, they have virtually no chance of getting their way on the state level since they'd have over 27 separate battles to fight against the odds. This bill is a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners no matter what the original motivation was and they will use it to attack and roll back CC.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#47

Post by VMI77 »

C-dub wrote:If the fed put restrictions or requirements on the driver's licenses I am unaware of them.

I thought I posted something earlier this morning in this thread from my phone, but I guess it didn't make it through. I had mused that we always seem to like it when a state has pre-emption, but now that the fed is trying to have pre-emption we're a bit skeptical. I understand why, but this still seems like a good thing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Federally mandated standards for state driver's licenses or ID cards

Driver's license implications

The REAL ID Act's implications for driver's licenses and ID cards is detailed in Title II of the Act. Title II of REAL ID — “Improved Security for Driver’s License and Personal Identification Cards” — repeals the driver's licenses provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act,[14] also known as the "9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004", that was enacted in December 2004. Section 7212 of that law established a cooperative state-federal process, via a negotiated rule-making procedure, to create federal standards for driver’s licenses.

Instead, the Real ID Act directly imposes specific federal driver’s license standards.


The REAL ID Act Driver's License Summary[15] details the following provisions of the Act's driver's license title:

Authority
Data Retention and Storage
DL/ID Document Standards
Grants to States
Immigration Requirements
Linking of Databases
Minimum DL/ID Issuance Standards
Minimum Standards for Federal Use
Repeal of 9/11 Commission Implementation Act DL/ID Provisions
Security and Fraud Prevention Standards
Verification of Documents

After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. The DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used for official federal purposes without seeking the approval of Congress before doing so. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.[16]

People born on or after December 1, 1964, will have to obtain a REAL ID by December 1, 2014. Those born before December 1, 1964, will have until December 1, 2017 to obtain their REAL ID.[17]

The national license/ID standards cover:
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

alvins

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#48

Post by alvins »

Rex B wrote:
Purplehood wrote:
AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... latestnews

If this passes, what happens with the hold out Illinois? ;-)
This should really torque up Bloomberg! :rules: "rlol"

As much as this sounds too good to be true..........
It may be unconstitutional as the States have rights.
I look at it the same as if a state had to recognize your marriage, divorce or driver's license. I don't really see it as any infringement on a States rights.
From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

My position is the 2nd Amendment says all that needs to be said.
your more worried about gay people then your right to have a gun?
User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Alvin
Contact:

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#49

Post by SewTexas »

We took a real quick vacation out to California last week, it would have been nice to have been able to carry out there, esp through a couple of neighborhoods we drove through in LA, ugh. However, I would rather leave my guns here in TX if it means having some dude in DC tell TEXAS what people have to learn, and what our laws must be, in order to carry because people in IL aren't comfy with our "gun carry'n ways"
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#50

Post by G.A. Heath »

Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards, eg minimal background check (think NICS check, one that qualifies for a 5 year NICS exemption would be encouraged), minimal proof of proficiency (Hunters education would suffice), minimal safety training (Once again Hunters ed would suffice), and be able to purchase a handgun from an FFL (or be current active duty military). At this point you should have standards that are well within reach of every state, in fact almost all states that issue a license would exceed these standards already.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
User avatar

74novaman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3798
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: CenTex

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#51

Post by 74novaman »

G.A. Heath wrote:Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards.

Should be, yes. Will be? No.

Once again history scares me on this one. The firearms owner protection act should have been a great thing for gun owners. Instead, we got the Hughes amendment.

Were winning in the courts, were winning in the arena of public opinion.

Why give the antis a way to hit us the only way the have left, the us legislature?

Benefits don't outweigh the risks on this one to me. Were winning state by state.
TANSTAAFL
User avatar

DEB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Copperas Cove, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#52

Post by DEB »

74novaman wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards.

Should be, yes. Will be? No.

Once again history scares me on this one. The firearms owner protection act should have been a great thing for gun owners. Instead, we got the Hughes amendment.

Were winning in the courts, were winning in the arena of public opinion.

Why give the antis a way to hit us the only way the have left, the us legislature?

Benefits don't outweigh the risks on this one to me. Were winning state by state.
:iagree: Scary to give the Legislature more power to affect our rights. Currently there is enough of those who believe like us, that I am not too concerned. But, that can change at a whiff. Case in point, our current POTUS.
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt"
DEB=Daniel E Bertram
U.S. Army Retired, (Sapper). VFW Life Member.
User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Alvin
Contact:

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#53

Post by SewTexas »

:iagree: Exactly! do we really want legislators from NY, CA and IL having a say in what happens to Texans gun rights? uh, NO! on the face of it the bill looks nice, but it....oh shoot....I'm gonna say it....dang it all I've gotta say it....there's no way around it <sigh>...

it's one of those "slippery slope" things (I hate that phrase) and this one could slide right off the hill. call me paranoid, but I think they're out to get us.
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir

mamabearCali
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield, VA

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#54

Post by mamabearCali »

The more I think about this, the more I am SURE it is a bad idea. The rewards if it came out nice would be good, but the risk is far far far too high. From a national gun owners database to the feds attemtping to institute a "may issue law" nationwide to anti-states setting legal traps for gun owners, not to mention states rights. Nope nope nope. Thanks I'll keep my VA license and just avoid states that don't recognize it if at all possible. Sure I would love to carry my gun when I visit my in-laws, but not at the cost that it could be. Going to call my rep and say "this may look good but don't go for it."
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.

"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers

mamabearCali
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield, VA

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#55

Post by mamabearCali »

SewTexas wrote: call me paranoid, but I think they're out to get us.

It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you!
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.

"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9655
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#56

Post by Beiruty »

If this is NRA supported why the fear?
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
User avatar

OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:00 am

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#57

Post by OldCurlyWolf »

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?
Think about the law of unintended consequences. Something the NRA is not thinking about. :mad5
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
User avatar

Topic author
AEA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 5110
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#58

Post by AEA »

OldCurlyWolf wrote:
Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?
Think about the law of unintended consequences. Something the NRA is not thinking about. :mad5
They definitely should be! :banghead: That's what they exist for! :???:
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only.
Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1
1911's RULE!
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#59

Post by VMI77 »

Here are some things that could come with Federal involvement (skipping the whole issue of State's rights, and assuming that reciprocity won't be used as a pretext to eliminate carry or shall issue):

liability insurance requirement with a coverage minimum
increased licensing fees (if for no other reason than to pay for the increased cost of federal mandates)
restrictions on magazine capacity
limit on the number of magazines you can carry (probably to the one in the gun)
ammo restrictions --e.g., no HP or hand-loads
caliber restrictions --these could be anything, but for instance, no "Judge" because it shoots shotgun rounds
limit on the number of guns you can carry --forget about a BUG
limit and ID of the type of gun you can carry --for instance, you say you're going to carry a 1911, it will be on the license, and you can't carry anything else
additional instruction and proficiency requirements
publication of the names of license holders

Initially, any such restrictions probably won't be "required," but if the State doesn't adhere to the Federal "guidelines," its license won't grant reciprocity, so any gain to carry, say in New Jersey --something most of us will never do anyway because we will never voluntarily go to New Jersey-- will come at a cost where you do carry, or you'll lose existing reciprocity.
Last edited by VMI77 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

#60

Post by VMI77 »

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?
The NRA is a national organization, is it not? Why then are there states with laws like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois? Apparently the NRA's ability to influence gun law is limited. Their power to affect legislation is likely somewhat in proportion to the number of people it effects. CC affects a small number of gun owners --most gun owners probably don't care about CC, since they're not getting licenses themselves-- so the political calculus will be different in the longer run. Reciprocity will come at a cost. The NRA may believe it is worth the cost. Maybe it will be, but I fear it won't.

Look at my list of possible restrictions and tell me which of them non license holders, the general public, and anti-gunners will consider to be "unreasonable"? I submit that adding such restrictions to Federal reciprocity requirements will not be politically difficult to do.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”