House Panel clears National Carry

It will more likely cause state legislatures to simply decide to get out of the business altogether and leave it the the Feds, which is what the Feds want. Yay!

We don't need the Feds or the anti-gunners to destroy us. Our own paranoia will do the job for them.

may 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 person, that--

Click to expand...

Huh? OTHER THAN STATE OF RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON? confused.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

Click to expand...

So I could go to a stupid 10 round magazine state, and if my state allows 30round magazines I could use a 15 rounder? because buying 10 rounders cost more. Is this what this section talks about?

Also any word on Citizen protection act of 2011?

Huh? OTHER THAN STATE OF RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON? confused.

Click to expand...

Why are you confused? The purpose of HR822 is to establish nationwide reciprocity for holders of CCW permits. You don't need reciprocity for your own state; you only need it for the states of which you are not a resident.

So I could go to a stupid 10 round magazine state, and if my state allows 30round magazines I could use a 15 rounder? because buying 10 rounders cost more. Is this what this section talks about?

Click to expand...

What? This section says that when you are carrying a concealed weapon in another state, you must abide by their laws.

Oh okay, thank you or clearing this up.

I just been hearing tons of bad things with this as a " federal " thing.

This law does nothing other than require one state recognize another's ccw permit. It adds no additional requirements. It creates no national registry.

For the people who complain that places like NYC will get to determine where you can and can't carry (which this bill doesn't allow anyway); do you realize that a NYC carry permit has fewer off limits places than Texas? The "forbidden zones" allow their elite to carry just about everywhere. This would just allow the rest of us that privilege.

I dont believe that s the case in NYC. There the permit is issued for very specific reasons. So one can have a permit to carry in his business, or between his business and the bank. But not all over the city.

When someone open carries down Madison Ave and no one notices we will have achieved real RKBA.

Toe in the door

Let's see, first we'll tell the states that anyone licensed to carry in any state can carry in any state.

Then when they all start complaining that there is no equity in the state laws we'll tell them that since we took care of that pesky interstate carry problem but they continue to complain we will now require Federal Licensing so that all requirements are equal across all states.

Then we'll in-act that darn United Nations anti gun thingy and honest citizens carrying guns will no longer be a danger to the Government, oops I mean all things will be equal.

But then, I am just an idiot to think that the Fed might have ulterior motives.

Personally I hope it fails as I don't what the Fed involved in any more state business, my business, your business, and since they have done such a spectacular job with the USA I don't want them in any business at all.

But then, I am just an idiot to think that the Fed might have ulterior motives.

Click to expand...

Just like allowing carry in national parks. It was the first step to total confiscation.

What about weapon make and model restrictions?
Can I carry a non-California-approved Kimber Super Carry Pro in California?
It seems unreasonable to make me buy a whole new gun specifically for one state...

This law does nothing other than require one state recognize another's ccw permit. It adds no additional requirements. ...

Click to expand...

While "a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm," is required in Oklahoma concealed carry law, "(other than a machinegun or destructive device)" is not mentioned in OK law(*), but "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce," is not a requirement under OK law. That is an added requirement, and as innocuous at it may appear, it is an open door for more "requirements" just as big as the list of "prohibited persons" is. That list of "prohibited persons" can grow totally outside of this piece of legislation, yet will become just as binding on this legislation as it is now.

(*Such devices are not on the list of what is permitted in Oklahoma.)

So, this billDOES require more than what is in state law already, and is in fact recognition by the Federal Government that all these state requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm are legitimate in spite of the states' requirements being in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

This bill is not the door being opened to more freedom, it is the door being opened to more infringements (regulations)(laws).

I've said it's similar to putting a caged animal in a bigger cage. That's not giving the animal its freedom back. I've also said it'll be a bigger cage with bigger bars. In truth, for most of us, our "cage" is pretty big right now. We'll just end up in the same cage but with bigger bars on it. Then, stand by as the cage begins to shrink and crush the freedom right out of you.

Woody

While "a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm," is required in Oklahoma concealed carry law, "(other than a machinegun or destructive device)" is not mentioned in OK law(*), but "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce," is not a requirement under OK law. That is an added requirement, and as innocuous at it may appear, it is an open door for more "requirements" just as big as the list of "prohibited persons" is. That list of "prohibited persons" can grow totally outside of this piece of legislation, yet will become just as binding on this legislation as it is now.

Click to expand...

What does shipping a gun have to do with concealed carry?

What does shipping a gun have to do with concealed carry?

Click to expand...

HR822, like any Federal law, has to have some basis in the Constitutional grants of power to the Federal government. In the case of HR822, it claims authority under the 2nd and 14th Amendments as well as the Interstate Commerce Clause. The bit about the firearm moving in interstate commerce invokes the Commerce Clause power.

I'm not very fond of the Commerce Clause justification in HR822, as the CC has been abused quite enough for my taste (the Gun-Free School Zone Act comes to mind). I think it's intended as a belt-and-suspenders approach to ensuring that Congress has jurisdiction. But I still don't like it.

First off, the Supremes did away with school zones in Lopez, as an over reach of the commerce clause.
Second, it seems the federal statute simply copies the language of the Gun Control Act.
I am confused by the earlier post by CC, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

First off, the Supremes did away with school zones in Lopez, as an over reach of the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

They sure did. But the story didn't stop there. Wikipedia:

Following the Lopez decision, Congress made minor changes [6] requiring that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce," and reenacted the law[7] with President William J. Clinton's signature. As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, this was merely a legislative tactic [8] to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. Although The amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts.

Click to expand...

Not that it matters. My point is that the Commerce Clause has been abused, extending Federal authority into places it does not belong. The original GFSZA is a perfectly good example of that. Having been struck down and reincarnated, it's an even better example.

I am confused by the earlier post by CC, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Click to expand...

You and me both.

So, what's the current status on HR 822?

I think my problem is this: Using the Commerce clause as justification in gun rights bills really invalidates our states' rights argument against using the commerce clause for anti-gun bills.

On the one hand, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but on the other hand if we get this commerce clause crud removed in the future where certain gun control laws are concerned, we could run the risk of losing things like HR822 that use the same premise as constitutional justification.

From the linked article:

"Lungren wants the measure to set a minimum national standard for conceal-and-carry permit holders."

The thin wedge.

Count me out. The only Federal action I want is the SCOTUS making good decisions like in Heller. Long live the five!

Clutch

I am confused by the earlier post by CC, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Click to expand...

That's probably for the same reason you believe HR 822 is "good" and/or "constitutional".

Woody

That's probably for the same reason you believe HR 822 is "good" and/or "constitutional".

Click to expand...

Depends.
HR822 makes perfect sense in logic and law to me.
Your post makes no sense in either. What does shipping a firearm have to do with concealed carry?

This bill is not the door being opened to more freedom, it is the door being opened to more infringements (regulations)(laws).

Click to expand...

You could have made the same argument 10 years ago for CCW laws. Now 4 states have constitutional carry. I'll take this metaphorical cage for a couple years. As more states move towards constitutional carry, this bill (if passed) becomes irrelevant.

Bubba613 said:

What does shipping a firearm have to do with concealed carry?

Click to expand...

Nothing as far as I'm concerned. But, for this law, if you have a firearm that wasn't shipped in interstate commerce, you can't carry it concealed in another state that this proposed legislation would cover.

Prince Yamato said:

You could have made the same argument 10 years ago for CCW laws. Now 4 states have constitutional carry. I'll take this metaphorical cage for a couple years. As more states move toward constitutional carry, this bill (if passed) becomes irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Ten years ago, we didn't have a ruling from the Court that confirmed the RKBA was a right of the individual or that the Second Amendment applied to the several states. I believed it (knew it) long before those two Court rulings, espoused the Founding Father's beliefs and written records of the need to include the protections from government of the RKBA, and espoused the proof that that is the case with how the Second Amendment was written.

I was just getting interested in this topic when concealed carry became law in Oklahoma, September 1, 1995. I plead guilty to being part of the problem before that, however. Ignorance can be as big a detriment to our rights as those who trample our rights.

Besides, this bill does not remove restrictions on our RKBA. Most states have laws prohibiting concealed carry of arms, and their laws "allowing" concealed carry of arms are really exceptions to those underlying laws - if you jump through the hoops. Those laws do not remove restrictions, and I'm all for removing those underlying laws rather than dressing them up with pieces of candy.

Only four states have forms of Constitutional Carry, and I applaud those states. Passing HR 822 will not influence more states to go Constitutional Carry than will go that way on their own. If anything, HR 822 will likely stifle that movement. Though folks like me will continue the fight to unfetter our RKBA, many will be placated to inaction by this bill just like the voices we lost when LEOSA passed.

If anything, this bill will forestall the movement toward the unfetterment of our RKBA.

I will close with the following: When has Congress ever removed a law that restricted our RKBA? Once this law gets passed, it'll take many years in Court to remove even one iota of this bill. We have a much better chance at the state level, and through the Court to remove the laws infringing upon our RKBA. Don't make it tougher by allowing this bill to pass. Don't take the bait.

Woody

How many guns were not transported in interstate commerce?
When was the last time Congress expanded RKBA? About 2009, as I recall.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/05/national_parks_gun_law_take_ef.html

Bubba613

You're right. I forgot about that one. I supported it, too. But take note it was only passed as an amendment to some other bill to garner enough votes. When a bill that is designed from scratch, as a bill on it's own, to unfetter our RKBA gets passed, like the Protection in Commerce in Arms bill, I'll celebrate.

Woody

OK, so there's two bills that expanded RKBA.
And this one is different, how?