Dear Robert,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.  I appreciate your taking the time to contact me and express your views on this issue.

I understand your concerns regarding the differing laws between states pertaining to carrying concealed firearms.  And, while I support the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution which expressly recognizes the right to bear arms, I do not support efforts to ease current regulations on individuals carrying concealed weapons.

As you may know, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, H.R. 822, was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 18, 2011.  This legislation would provide a national standard, across all states, for nonresidents of a state to carry a concealed firearm there.  Currently, these laws are determined on a state-by-state basis.

H.R. 822 has garnered 83 cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.  Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to closely monitor this legislation in the House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.  Your thoughts and opinions on this issue are of great value.  Please feel free to use my office as a resource at any time, and visit www.cicilline.house.gov for up-to-date information on a wide range of issues before Congress.

I look forward to further correspondence with you on this and any other matter of concern you may have in the future.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

17 COMMENTS

  2. This reminds me of the unresponsive response I received from Diane Feinstein when I wrote her as a constituent in the early 90s.

    And the word is “Consigliere.” Anything else is a sign of disrespect.

  3. He cares. He really does. “I support the right to bear arms, but I don’t support the right to bear arms.” These are the same lawyer filth that wrote many state constitutions. “…the right to bear arms shall not be infringed except that the state may regulate the carrying of arms.”

    • ha. Look at the IL constitution, amendment 22.

      “Subject only to the police power, the right of the
      individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
      infringed.”

      Which translates (roughly) to, “your rights to keep and bear arms can’t be infringed, except by the state.”

  4. The good news is that he has no chance of ever being elected to any office again after the way he destroyed the city of providence. The former Col. of the RI state police is a good honest man who will bury this fool when he makes his run for office. I’m not sure if our former top cop will go along with the program, but at least he has impeccable integrity.

  5. Am I the only rabid constitutionalist that opposes federally imposed national reciprocity?

    1) The states are sovereign. The federal government of the United States has no authority to circumvent their individual, unilateral policies.

    2) Put simply, from a practical perspective, what’s done easily can often be undone easily. Securing this on a state-by-state basis would be infinitely better.

    Permits, government monitoring/regulating firearms, gun control–utter abominations, all of them. I’m guessing most of you guys also feel this way?

    • I agree… There are already too many Federal mandates that affect everything in our lives… this is just another one. Leave it to the states.

    • “Am I the only rabid constitutionalist that opposes federally imposed national reciprocity?”

      Not at all. I also have my concerns, but let’s face it — that ship sailed once the congress and he courts decided that the Gun Free School Zones Acts passed constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause. If congress can tell someone in rural Alaska that she cannot carry within 1000 feet of a Montessouri School, the proposed reciprocity law does no additional harm.

      • Which is why I vote to nullify all court rulings in American history and start over. The court system is a fucking farce.

        • Actually, a farce might be somewhat amusing, and there’s nothing funny about the court system. I prefer to think of it as a f^cking disaster.

  6. States can be just as corrupt or dismissive of individual liberties as the feds can be. Jim Crow, anyone? The same ‘state soveriegnty’ that embraces concealed carry (or unrestricted carry) in Arizona can ban it entirely in New Jersey.

    When it comes to federally-mandated reciprocity, I for one think it’s a good thing that Illinois or Alabama have to recognize my Washington drivers license. Not all states (cough California cough) would do this out of the goodness of their hearts, especially if they could make some money requiring outsiders to purchase a ‘visitors license’ for a hundred bucks a week.

  7. Anyone want to join me in starting our own country? I’ve got this really neat Constitution that is currently not being followed by this country. “Land of the Free.” That kind of thing. Just thinking out-loud.

    • Okay, I’m in. But give it 200 years and I’m sure it, too, will turn into a rat hole.

      • The Grand God-Empire of the Holy Realm of the People’s Socialist Democratic Republic of America, or the GGEHRPSDRA. That’s our future. Are you SCARED NOW?

  8. bye! bye! “Congressman” David Cicilline …..wtf’s the average (political) life expentancy of anti-gun pollies in the US these days?

    in 0zz, it’s less than four years…..we’ve gone through one anti-gun Prime Minister, a dozen or so anti-gun state premiers and ½-dzn anti-gun “Opposition leaders” in less than a decade……and…we ain’t finished YET!…..we got LOTSA more!

    much more here

    and here

  9. Australia… Where guns are extremely difficult to get unless you are wealthy or politically connected. (Sounds like New York City or California!)
    Didn’t they ban swords there a few years ago?

Comments are closed.