H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill

[Cavalier Knight]

House Considers Expanding Gun-Carry Laws

WASHINGTON, DC
Monday, November 14, 2011

The House Rules Committee debates legislation allowing lawful gun owners to carry concealed weapons in other states. The legislation, titled the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,” would allow a person with a permit to carry a concealed handgun across state lines, even if a state prohibits it.

The legislation, which is expected to be debated in the full House this week, is co-sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC). The Rules Committee sets the terms of the debate in the House.

C-SPAN House rules committee session: Live at 5pm (ET)

 

[The Sarge]

This is a terrible bill allowing the Feds to override certain States Rights.
Many of us CCW/FFL's in Texas are fighting this. Keep the Feds and Washington DC out of CCW. Leave it to the States as it should be. We (gun owners) will regret this if it passes.

 

[Bubba613]

You realize that is the very same argument the anti-gun people are making, right? How does it feel to be on the same side as Chuck Schumer?

 

[The Sarge]

How does it feel to be on the wrong side friend?
How can you support legitimizing unconstitutional laws.
How can you support The Feds encroachment on yet even more of our lives and taking away more State's Right's?
How does that feel?

 

[Bubba613]

No, I'm on the side of expanding the ability to carry a handgun. The "states rights" argument is nonsensical at this point. Especially after everyone cheered Heller and McDonald, which explicitly overturned the unlimited right of states and municipalities to impose whatever laws they wanted.

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".

 

[Birch Knoll]

Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...

 

[The Sarge]

No, I'm on the side of expanding the ability to carry a handgun. The "states rights" argument is nonsensical at this point. Especially after everyone cheered Heller and McDonald, which explicitly overturned the unlimited right of states and municipalities to impose whatever laws they wanted.

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".

The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional...and this law only legitimizes that. So if passed, there is yet another layer (now Federal) of "law" to unravel to achieve true 2nd amendment rights for all law abiding citizens. The SCOTUS told the States they could not infringe on the 2nd Amendment (basically) that was protected by the US Constitution. Step in the right direction IMHO. HB822 is a step in the wrong direction as I outlined in my first sentence.

 

[The Sarge]

Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...

You got that right and thank God the SCOTUS saw it that way also. Our 2nd amendment right is already guaranteed. Don't need the Fed to pass anything.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...

The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements? Just where are you coming from, friend?

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".

It doesn't expand our RKBA at all. It only expands the cage we are trapped in and adds another, more powerful gate keeper. Our cage will have simply expanded just enough to fit under the thumb of the Feral(Federal) Government. As for "encroachment", it has already been done in the several states save four.

Woody

 

[Bubba613]

The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional.

Really? What is your proof?

It doesn't expand our RKBA at all. It only expands the cage we are trapped in and adds another, more powerful gate keeper. Our cage will have simply expanded just enough to fit under the thumb of the Feral(Federal) Government. As for "encroachment", it has already been done in the several states save four.

Really? Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary. So characterizing the expansion of that to where we are today as "encroachment" is, um, disingenuous at best. If this is encroachment, I want more of it.

 

[cor_man257]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Okay. Having to be lisenced is an infringment in many opinions.

 

[Birch Knoll]

The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements? Just where are you coming from, friend?

I'm just having a little fun with the idea that HR822 infringes on State's Rights.

For the 30 years I've been involved in the pro-RKBA struggle, we've been railing against state gun laws as violating the right to keep and bear arms. Along comes HR822, and suddenly some of us have become very attached to the states' "right" to legislate away our freedoms.

I can understand the concern that Federal entry into CCW could lead to increasingly intrusive federal requirements; that's certainly possible. I can understand that some might think that Congress doesn't have the power to enact such a law; I don't think I buy that, but one can make the argument. But State's Rights? Where you would claim that HR822 implicitly legitimizes state CCW laws, this argument explicitly does so.

 

[The Sarge]

Really? What is your proof?

Proof? "Shall not be infringed" is "proof" enough for me.

 

[The Sarge]

States rights is under attack yet again.
CCW is a civil license. So if this passes do we then (States) have to recognize Gay Marriage if that "couple" has a license from a liberal state?
Now I submit carrying a gun (I feel) is protected under the US Constitution and Gay marriage is not. However......HB822 is the Feds opening another bag of worms.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary.

I had one of those pre-1987 CCW permits in Florida. They were issued at the county level, and only valid in the county that issued them. You had to submit to a background investigation by the county sheriff, provide the make, model and serial number of any weapon to be carried, post a bond, and pray for a positive recommendation from the sheriff, and hope the county commission would vote to issue the permit. Then you could repeat for as many of Florida's 67 counties as you could stand.

Trust me, we've come a long way.

 

[danez71]

Constitution cowboy said:

The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements?

This is an example of where you start to lose my support of your arguement Woody.

Your statement above is like saying that because illegal immigrant children attend AZ schools, AZ is "blessing" the Feds failure in regards to immigration control.

Or that AZ is blessing illegal immigration by legitimizing their existance and allowing them to attend school.

Its simply not true and AZ is about to go the SCOTUS to fight the Feds on it.



I also dont buy into that HR822, if passed, would be ANOTHER layer of Fed law to unravel. HR822 would/could simply become another meaniless law on the books.

SCOTUS could end up ruling in the future that if a state has to allow either CC or OC or both. HB822 could be advantagous in some of those scenarios.

 

[Birch Knoll]

The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional

States rights is under attack yet again. CCW is a civil license.

Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Really? Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary. So characterizing the expansion of that to where we are today as "encroachment" is, um, disingenuous at best. If this is encroachment, I want more of it.

Your statement above is factually false, as VT has had constitutional carry since 1776. We are not a shall issue state. We simply don't believe that one needs the permission of the state to defend oneself, at all.

You, apparently, do. As such, I'm not much interested in expanding your rights, until you can distinguish them from privileges.

 

[Bubba613]

Your statement above is factually false, as VT has had constitutional carry since 1776. We are not a shall issue state. We simply don't believe that one needs the permission of the state to defend oneself, at all.

My statement is factually true. As you yourself prove. No state, including VT had shall issue permits prior to FL.
I don't care what people in VT believe or don't believe.
Yes, we've come a long way. Imagine if some yoke had gone to the FL legislature and lobbied against carry permits because he considered them, with no basis, an infringement on a right that no one recognized. Talk about the good being the enemy of the perfect.

Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?
ttolhurst is online now Report Post Quick reply to this message

I'm still stuck on how you can be opposed to a law to expand RKBA while being in favor of it.

 

[henschman]

Certainly I believe that the right to bear arms is one of the many rights protected by the 14th Amendment's language "life, liberty, and property," but this law doesn't really do anything to address the infringement on the RKBA. As others have said, the RKBA is being infringed by states who require their govt's permission to go armed in public. All this law does is to make it easier for people to abide by these unconstitutional, anti-libertarian state laws when they travel.

Now a law that declared all State prohibitions on carrying weapons and all state licensure laws null and void I could get behind, as falling under Congress' power in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But I don't think that is the goal or the result of the law at hand. If it were challenged in Court its proponents would probably try to justify it under the commerce clause, rather than the 14th Amendment like you guys are trying to do.

 

[Birch Knoll]

The text of the bill explicitly invokes Congress' authority under the 2nd and 14th amendments, as well as the right of interstate travel and the Commerce Clause.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

forcing the several states to remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is.

You know, you lost a bit of credibility there. The bill says nothing about removing anything. All it says is that states must honor other states permits and those carrying from out of state must follow that state's laws. Those coming from OC states can't OC when they go to a place like Texas. If you have a permit in NH, why can't you carry in Mass? The only way we can get back to the way we were is through progress like this.

EDIT: Holy Crap! I need to get more sleep, I completely took what you said and thought you meant that the bill had that kind of language in it. I apologize for that, guess I'll stay out of this whole discussion now.

 

[The Sarge]

Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?

As I have said repeatedly.....this (HR822) only legitimizes an already unconstitutional situation. Adds yet another layer to defeat in the future to achieve true 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Bubba613]

We must destroy RKBA in order to save it!

 

[The Sarge]

Can you elaborate there? I fail to follow you at all.