From VCDL's email:

THIS IS TIME SENSITIVE AND WE NEED TO SPREAD THE WORD FAR AND WIDE ACROSS THE NATION!

The petition requires 100,000 signature BY AUGUST 17TH to be considered by the President. Please sign and forward to any and all gun groups you know - from gun clubs, gun organizations, chat groups, friends, family, coworkers, and fellow church members!

We can do this, but we need all the help we can get from gun owners across the nation.

Here is the link to the petition:

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...ndgun-permit-holders

or

http://tinyurl.com/yakuske5

Here's the wording:

National Reciprocity for the Nation's 17 Million Concealed Handgun Permit Holders!

Mr. President, you have said many times that you would sign a national concealed carry reciprocity bill. Please urge Congress to pass H.R. 38 as soon as possible!

H.R. 38 will allow America's 17 million concealed handgun permit holders to carry in every state in the Union as they go about their lives. As the recent shooting in Alexandria shows, crime and terrorism have no borders. Neither should self-defense!

No other group is as law-abiding as concealed handgun permit holders, regardless of which state they are from.

Currently over 20 states, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Arizona, already honor permits from all other states, without issue. H.R. 38 will simply make such recognition uniform across the nation and will save many innocent American lives!

—

30 days is not long, guys and gals! Use any forms of social media that you can to get the word out.

Let's roll, VCDL!


-------


PHASE 3 - CONTACT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, PAUL RYAN

Right now National Reciprocity is languishing in a House Judiciary subcommittee. We have contacted Virginia Representative Bob Goodlatte to urge him to get H.R. 38 moving. However, we must get the House leadership behind that effort.

Apparently the Speaker, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has not been hearing from enough people that national reciprocity is important to them.

We can certainly fix that problem!

While we are not constituents of his, he is OUR Speaker and there is a way to communicate with him as such.


ACTION ITEM FOR EVERYONE

To call the Speaker's DC office (best option): 202-225-0600
To email the Speaker: http://www.speaker.gov/contact (select "A Better Way" for Area of Interest, for Subject use: "Please get H.R. 38 to the Floor ASAP!", and for Issue use: "Homeland Security")

Talking points:

* National Reciprocity is an important bill to the 17 million concealed handgun permit holders in the U.S., as it is a life-saving measure that allows people to protect themselves as they travel around the country
* Please get H.R. 38 to the Floor for a vote ASAP

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sig 226,

Just a bump to get people so spam Speaker Ryan and get additional signatures.

Done

Done

Done.

I'm a little scared of National Reciprocity.

It puts a LOT of power into a few hands; power that ought to be diffused to state level as it is now.

Consider: Pro-gun forces won't be in power indefinitely -- sooner or later the hoplophobes will be back in charge, as they were during the Obama years. If the power to set standards for issuing a CCW is in hoplophobic hands, it'll be easy for them to make those standards impossible to reach.

What I'm saying is that I fear that National Reciprocity could be turned into gun control writ large. How are you going to keep that from happening?

I would need to see what such a bill would actually entail. Just saying we want to pass national reciprocity leaves way too much out there that concerns me like others who have expressed such reservations.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:
I'm a little scared of National Reciprocity.

It puts a LOT of power into a few hands; power that ought to be diffused to state level as it is now.

Consider: Pro-gun forces won't be in power indefinitely -- sooner or later the hoplophobes will be back in charge, as they were during the Obama years. If the power to set standards for issuing a CCW is in hoplophobic hands, it'll be easy for them to make those standards impossible to reach.

What I'm saying is that I fear that National Reciprocity could be turned into gun control writ large. How are you going to keep that from happening?

^^^^
This.
I guess it really comes down to how much you trust government over the long-haul vs. the immediate short-term.

I think National Reciprocity would be a huge increase in Federal power preempting local authority.
That Federal power, once established, would be under the control of whoever is in power.

The BATFE would likely have regulatory authority to decide the uniform requirements for carry which all states must follow.
It is *unlikely* they would use Alaska as a model.

There would now be a single point of concentration for all of the effort to impose burden on carry.

I don't think you can simultaneously want "small government" at the Federal level AND ask for a Federal *legislative* solution to a local problem. Legislative solutions never diminish government authority to restrict and regulate. They always increase it.

In this case, it is giving Congress and Executive rule-making agencies the *perceived* need to create or declare, among other things I'm sure the bureaucrats can think of that I can't:
- Minimum training and proficiency levels.
- Record keeping and a national database of permit holders.
- "Safety" requirements and regulations.

I'm all for state-level preemption to keep cities like Seattle from creating a patchwork of regulations, but state boundaries are pretty clear. States are welcome to negotiate with each other and create reciprocity, based on their own perceived needs.

At the same time, we have some promising court cases headed up to SCOTUS that may well sort this out in ways that are harder for the legislative and executive branches to tamper with. I'd rather be patient, see how that settles out, then maybe come back around for a legislative solution.

Done

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I would need to see what such a bill would actually entail. Just saying we want to pass national reciprocity leaves way too much out there that concerns me like others who have expressed such reservations.

Check out HR 38

I've read the bill and am not finding much fault in it. This section in particular seems to leave much of the authority in regulating where and when one can carry up to the States.

quote:

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

“(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

Done from Colorado!

Done

I am not in the National Reciprocity camp.

Having worked for the Feds, I don't want them any where near my gun rights.

I don't see anything in the text that inserts the Feds or the BATFE into state carry requirements. I have every confidence that if they don't sneak it here somewhere, they will add it in another bill. That doesn't give me a warm fuzzy.

Additionally, the GDCs in CA will undoubtedly tighten things up a lot. Of course they will do that if and when they finally lose Peruta at the Supreme Court and are forced to go shall issue.

Done

Done

Done.

Done when it was first posted.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
I am not in the National Reciprocity camp.

Having worked for the Feds, I don't want them any where near my gun rights.

They already are. It's a matter of whether or not you want a say in the "how".