Please help to push for support of this bill.

[1991gulfwarvet]

Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1243 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1243

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 10, 2005

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. HALL, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANNON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. OTTER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SODREL, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005'.

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 926A the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is--

`(1) carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or

`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

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

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

[1991gulfwarvet]

This is one of the most important 2nd Ammendment rights bills in the last 20 years. And nobody seems to have an opinion except me.
That's very sad.
Wake up and smell the freedom!!! :(

[1sgkelly]

You need to go here.

http://forums.1911forum.com/

:)

[Jack Price]

[QUOTE=1991gulfwarvet]

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.


In Illinois it is illegal for anyone other than a LEO or Retired LEO to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle. It is also unlawful to carry (with same exceptions) on a public way (street or sidewalk) within a municipality. Looks to me, that the way this is written, an awful lot of non-residents could/would get busted in Illinois and this law would offer them no protection.

[Bing_Oh]

The bill makes little difference, even if it's passed. States have every right to make a law more restrictive than similar federal law. So, a state that has no desire to have non-residents carrying concealed only has to put a provision into law that makes it illegal in that state. Viola! Federal law overruled! Many states (see Illinios) already have those provisions in the law.

[LPI]

The key word there is "Notwithstanding". That means it overrides state law. It is written similarly to the US Code that deals with the Interstate transpotation of firearms, which I have pasted below.



§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

[LPI]

Illinois is a good example. The mayor of Chicago has made it known that he will not honor HR 218 for his own retired officers, but there is nothing he can do about retired officers from other states carrying in his city.

[Bing_Oh]

It's a nice try in wording, but it would never fly if challenged. The federal government only has the powers expressly given to it by the US Constitution. All other powers are reserved by the state. While the federal government can regulate interstate regulations (ie, they can make a law regarding whether or not a firearm can be lawfully transported across state lines), they cannot dictate restrictions (or lack thereof) to individual states in regards to honoring firearms permits from other states. Unless their intention in this law is to bring about a second ammendment debate...

Can they pass the law? Yes. Would it be ruled unconstitutional if challenged? Quite possibly, considering the second ammendment interpetations we've seen in the past from the higher courts. That's one of the things I've been nervous about with HR 218...it has yet to be interpeted by the court and it treds on rather thin ice in regards to states' rights issues. I'm a huge supporter of HR 218, but I'm not sure that it will be able to hold up against the inevitable legal challenges.

[LPI]

Fair enough. :) There is actually an association u all have probably heard of that played a vital role in the passing of HR 218. Their name is Law Enforcement Alliance of America. A very good group to support.

Here is a link.

http://www.leaa.org/

[tony.o]

It's a nice try in wording, but it would never fly if challenged. The federal government only has the powers expressly given to it by the US Constitution. All other powers are reserved by the state. While the federal government can regulate interstate regulations (ie, they can make a law regarding whether or not a firearm can be lawfully transported across state lines), they cannot dictate restrictions (or lack thereof) to individual states in regards to honoring firearms permits from other states. Unless their intention in this law is to bring about a second ammendment debate...

Can they pass the law? Yes. Would it be ruled unconstitutional if challenged? Quite possibly, considering the second ammendment interpetations we've seen in the past from the higher courts. That's one of the things I've been nervous about with HR 218...it has yet to be interpeted by the court and it treds on rather thin ice in regards to states' rights issues. I'm a huge supporter of HR 218, but I'm not sure that it will be able to hold up against the inevitable legal challenges.
You still believe that we have a real Constitution, with states rights? :eek: I quit arguing about the constitution, since people ignore what is clearly in it and see rights that do not exist. Since when is transporting your personal gun from one state to another, in your own vehicle, 'commerce between the states'. The lawyer types have so convoluted all legal issues that not even like minds can agree on anything.