Jump to content

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2016


SWMissourian

Recommended Posts

A BILL

To allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2016”.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

 

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926Cthe following:

§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary—

“(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that—

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

“(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that—

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) Conditions And Limitations.—The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

“(c) Unrestricted License Or Permit.—In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

“(d) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:


“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

(c) Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this Act and amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

((Can’t edit but it’s supposed to have “Senator Madison, for himself and with thanks to Senator Cornyn, introduced the following bill:”))

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President 

I object. This bill forces laws of one state into another and it should not be passed. If Californians do not want people from other states coming in with guns then we shouldn’t be forcing that on them. This act basically says if an Iowan comes to Colorado, that Iowan is only subject to the concealed carry laws of Iowa. It is for those reasons I object.

I yield

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President

the gentleman from Colorado raises the exact objection that I have. If Missouri wants to have more relaxed concealed carry laws than New York, even if there are colleagues who disagree. We ought to respect their decision. That’s their choice. But to say that a Missourian in New York does not have to abide by the laws in New York, but rather can assume the laws of his own state is illogical. There is not another issue that we do this for. We do not allow citizens of Colorado to open up marijuana dispensaries in states where it’s not been legalized. They would still be punished accordingly. We need to send a clear message from this chamber. I will not vote for a bill that overrides the decision of my state. Therefore I will not vote for this bill and will not vote for cloture of it; and I encourage my likeminded Senators to do the same. 

I yield. 

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President

I must say, it’s incredibly odd. The author of the bill can’t even bring himself to this chamber to debate. He can’t come here and defend his premise for writing it. He can’t be dragged here to answer our questions. The Senate majority cannot be bothered for a moment to actually discuss these issues. They merely want them all to pass through consent. They expect us to stand by and let them erase the delicate balance of federal laws and state rights. If the gentleman from Missouri can’t be bothered to argue his own bill, I will stand in this chamber and argue against it.

But I return to my original point. The reason that this bill is unnecessary and illogical is that it makes concealed carry and unique law. If one of my colleagues, the author of this bill, if one of his constituents was to come to my state, the gentleman from Missouri believes he should be able to carry concealed just as if he never left home. He wants Missouri laws for Missourians regardless where the may be. But if one of my constituents was to come down to Missouri and say it’s different, say they commit a crime. I know that there are some major differences, but I’m showing that this is a unique issue.  Would my constituent be tried in Missouri under Missouri law or Massachusetts law? In Massachusetts we don’t have the death penalty. Should my constituent, having killed a Missourian in Missouri face Missouri law or Massachusetts law? 

I think I know his answer. I think he knows his answer. I think we all know his answer. Laws of states end at the borders of those states, plain and simple. 

I yield

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President,

Since the Gentlemen from Massachusetts and Colorado are so supportive of states' rights now, I wonder if they believe that states should be allowed to decide issues like gay marriage and abortion on their own?

But we all know that this is really just a red herring to distract you from the real issue. The real issue here is your Constitutional right as an American to bear arms, granted to you by the Second Amendment. Senate Republicans believe in protecting that right, and Senate Democrats believe in depriving you of that right. It's really that simple. 

Today, I'm proud to stand here on behalf of gun owners across America and support your rights. I'm proud to advocate for your right to protect yourself, your family, your friends and your fellow Americans from potential harm. That right doesn't disappear when you cross state lines. The Second Amendment applies in all 50 states of our union. 

I yield. 

Former President Kyle Fitzgerald

Three-Time Republican Nominee

Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, the second amendment doesn’t disappear, but what does appear is individual state laws. But speaking of red herrings, let’s not forget: the gentleman from Texas didn’t answer the question. He cannot answer the question. This isn’t leadership Mr. President it’s cowardice. And if the gentleman from Texas is going to answer serious questions with feckless answers it’s going to be a long road ahead. So let’s try it again. 

If a constituent of Massachusetts violates a law in Texas. Should he be tried under Massachusetts law or Texas law? They know the answer, they know it’s hypocritical. and Mr. president, I’ll be more than happy to be the states rights man in this chamber, because I dont see one from the party opposite

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

I apologize for my absence. The Senator from Massachusetts seems particularly offended, but rest assured, my absence was well warranted. It just so happens I can only be in once place at once. But, to the matter at hand. 

Like the Majority Leader said, this debate is about the constitutional right to bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment. No state should be able to infringe on this right. This is different than a Massachusetts native coming to Missouri and murdering a man. Yes, that man should still be arrested and tried by Missourian law. Get a parking ticket in Missouri? Yes, you still pay the fee and abide by the laws of Missouri. The thing is, Mr. President, that whole argument is disingenuous. Exercising one’s rights isn’t a crime, certainly not even comparable to committing a crime. 

The point of this law is to avoid getting law abiding Americans who are just exercising their rights properly caught in the crossfire. A man in Missouri with a pistol in his truck shouldn’t be arrested because he went on a road trip. He still needs protection. That person isn’t committing a crime. They are exercising a right in accordance with the place they live. We don’t stop drivers who passed a Texas test from driving in Oklahoma, and we shouldn’t stop Americans from protecting themselves just because they aren’t in their home state at that moment. 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

This is not an issue of whether or not one state should be allowed to disavow the constitution. This is ensuring that all Americans have their second amendment right recognized in every state, whether or not the state decides to follow the constitution on its own. The federal government's first and foremost responsibility is to uphold the constitution of this nation. If a state decides they do not want to follow it, the federal government must do its job and protect individuals from that unfortunate lack of judgement. I will answer the Senator from Massachusetts' question. Yes, a constituent of Massachusetts should be prosecuted under Texas law if he or she violates Texas law.... This is assuming, however, that the Texas law supports the constitution of the United States. We are a nation of states that are given autonomy to govern under the guide of a federal code. If the federal code is not defended or ignored, it is the job and responsibility of the federal government to intervene. 

 

I yield.   

joesig.jpg.20a565c2f4251ca06d0b73a73e6ac71b.jpg

Republican of Florida

Press Office | Twitter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President,

The Gentleman from [Wherever he is from, Ward update your signature] says that the second amendment right to carry a concealed weapon is being held up as a unique law by the introduction of the legislation currently before this august body and he is right. The Second Amendment is, by virtue of it being enshrined in the constitution, a unique law which, by virtue of it being assaulted in an almost constant way by the political left in America, requires unique protection against these sustained attacks. Constitutional rights are, by their definition, unique as compared to rights which are simply conferred by legislation; the right to free speech in America is, by its very essence, above the right to a minimum wage because it is enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America, which is the highest law in the land. So it is with the right to vote; so it is with the right to arms. If the Gentleman from [Wherever] thinks that he is arguing against this legislation by his comments on the uniqueness of constitutional rights, then he is mistaken.

I yield.

Cordially Yours,

William Grant of Maryland, and Family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...