H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the NRA's emails, there is a vote scheduled in the House today. I'll be more interested to see how well it fares in the Senate.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. But you also seemed to be saying that you believe that HR822 infringes State's Rights. Is that correct, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the belief that the 2nd Amendment doesn't permit the states to license carry?
 
It's a mess.
In order to oppose this bill those against must maintain that 1) any permit scheme is an infringement based on a simplistic reading of the Constitution, 2) The Constitution only grants Federal powers, 3) States are bound by the 2A of the Constitution.
It is easy to see the muddle this argument is. Either states are subject to Federal power (the supremacy clause) or they aren't. The bill itself cites several bases for Congressional power. The Commerce Clause is as valid here as it was in Civil Rights era cases and legislation, possibly more so since the law specifically affects individuals travelling from one state to another.
No one has offered a rationale for opposition. Merely dark murmurings about conspiracies and unConstitutional action.
 
H.R. 2900 vs H.R. 822

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

H.R. 2900
 
Last edited:
The Facts About H.R. 822, the "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act"
Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked by anti-gun organizations and the media. Regrettably, even some so-called "pro-gun" organizations have joined with the anti-gun Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns to try to defeat this pro-gun bill.
This critically important legislation, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)
H.R. 822 would mark a major step forward for gun owners' rights by significantly expanding where permits are recognized. Dozens of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years, because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws, and a few deny recognition completely.
H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized in all states with some form of a permit system, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries.
Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on "states rights." States, however, don't have rights, they have powers. And while many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" in opposing this bill, several provisions in the U.S. Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the 14th Amendment (please see related article from last week's Grassroots Alert).
Next, despite what a few so-called "pro-gun" activists have argued, this bill would not create a federal licensing or registration system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for carry permits. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the FACTS about a few of their claims:
Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.
FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require-or even authorize-any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.
Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.
Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.
TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.
H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. Don't listen to false or misleading accusations; instead, read the bill and our fact sheet explaining its provisions. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year
 
This law would force all states to recognize permits issued by any state. It would basically have the effect of making every state like Oklahoma, which has full reciprocity. So it would allow everyone in the nation to get a non-resident permit from the state with the least requirements (probably Maine, where you don't have to give fingerprints, you can do a 20 minute online gun safety class to satisfy the training requirement, and it only costs $60), and every state in the union would have to honor it. Or am I missing something?
 
So it would allow everyone in the nation to get a non-resident permit from the state with the least requirements (probably Maine, where you don't have to give fingerprints, you can do a 20 minute online gun safety class to satisfy the training requirement
Click to expand...
Say what? This is what Maine requires for handgun safety training:
Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety.
The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing
authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof
that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a
course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a
federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms
instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as
knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the
state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other
document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that
the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph
Click to expand...
Generally, this means a course taught by an NRA-certified instructor, conducted to NRA standards. The last time I took one, it was probably 5 or 6 hours long.

Who's giving 20-minute online courses?
 
After what Sky posted, this bears repeating:

Me said:
To Whom It May Concern:

H.R. 822 is unconstitutional. The NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, available at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003, in the very first sentence, includes all the information needed to show the unconstitutionality where it says:

"H.R. 822, ... would allow ...

No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right?

This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings:

"(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense."​

This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding:

"(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."​

Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.

This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate.

This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following:

"..., a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, ..." ​

All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons.

This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.

I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.
Click to expand...

Sincerely, Woody
 
This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.

I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I agree that in many cases if you give an inch they will take enough rope to hang you.....We will see what happens...always two sides of a coin.
 
Say what? This is what Maine requires for handgun safety training:
Quote:
Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety.
The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing
authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof
that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a
course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a
federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms
instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as
knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the
state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other
document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that
the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph
Generally, this means a course taught by an NRA-certified instructor, conducted to NRA standards. The last time I took one, it was probably 5 or 6 hours long.

Who's giving 20-minute online courses?
Click to expand...

Read the part I bolded in your quote above.

The Maryland Police Training Commission offers an online gun safety course that only takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete, and includes handgun safety. It even prints you out a nice nifty certificate of completion at the end.

For a guy who lives in Oklahoma, which already has full reciprocity, it sure beats the Oklahoma CCL, which costs a lot more money to get, requires you to jump through a lot more hoops, and takes a longer time on average before you're approved. The only downsides are that it isn't recongized by as many other states and it wouldn't serve as an affirmative defense to a prosecution under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

I still don't like being told to get ANYONE'S permission in order to keep from being assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed by the State for exercising a natural right, but I suppose it is less of an infringement than the Oklahoma CCL.

And if the effect of this national concealed carry law would be to lessen the infringement that is currently taking place by the states, by allowing everyone to get a non-resident permit from a less violative jurisdiction that imposes less of a prior restraint on the right, I suppose there might be a valid 14th Amendment justification for it. I suppose it could start a "race to the bottom," since every state would be required to recognize permits from the state with the least requirements. I suppose a state could start issuing a piece of paper to anyone, resident or non-resident, stamped "concealed carry license," with no requirements at all, and all other states would have to honor it.
 
The Maryland Police Training Commission offers an online gun safety course that only takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete, and includes handgun safety. It even prints you out a nice nifty certificate of completion at the end.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! I wonder if Maine would actually accept that training? Since the documentation of training is essentially a self-certified document, I'd be a little skeptical. I will contact the Maine State Police lieutenant responsible for weapons licenses and see what he has to say.

Thanks for the information.
 
My statement is factually true. As you yourself prove. No state, including VT had shall issue permits prior to FL.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. You said:

Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary.
Click to expand...

This is objectively false.

While it's nice that the rest of the country is coming along and slowly catching up to VT, any effort to so do which takes VT backward I am going to oppose.

You have adequately stated your view that the permitting regime constitutes a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment. It would follow that you would have no problem with a federal permitting regime. Such a regime would overrule VT's constitutional carry protection. Such a federal regime is also the logical outcome of any thought experiment that tries to imagine New York being forced to allow any Vermonter to carry concealed with no restrictions. None of the states that ban the concealed carry of firearms without special permission of the state will stand for it. You know this. You don't have a problem with this. But you won't be honest about it.

HR822 makes a commerce clause argument for the federal government's involvement in a permitting regime, thereby legitimating permitting generally at the federal level. This is a step backwards for the states with constitutional carry. Though it may advance the privileges of citizens in the more backwards states, that isn't a strong enough argument.

As such, I do not support this bill.
 
You have adequately stated your view that the permitting regime constitutes a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment. It would follow that you would have no problem with a federal permitting regime. Such a regime would overrule VT's constitutional carry protection. Such a federal regime is also the logical outcome of any thought experiment that tries to imagine New York being forced to allow any Vermonter to carry concealed with no restrictions. None of the states that ban the concealed carry of firearms without special permission of the state will stand for it. You know this. You don't have a problem with this. But you won't be honest about it.
Click to expand...
First you put words in my mouth. Then you call me dishonest. I think the discussion is nearing its end.
It is not my view that permitting passes Constitutional muster. It is the view of the Supreme Court. There is no proposal anywhere for a federal permit. So you cannot say whether I support it or not.
Alaska and Arizona to my knowledge issue permits for those who want them, for precisely this purpose. That is true today. The House bill does nothingt o change that or its reasons. Why Vermont is backward in this respect is beyond me, but maybe something to take up with their legislators.
 
First you put words in my mouth. Then you call me dishonest. I think the discussion is nearing its end.
Click to expand...

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm merely summarizing the implication of what you're asserting in favor of this bill. And I don't think you're being particularly honest. And I do agree that this discussion is going nowhere.

As to your assertion that VT is backward because it does not offer permits for an activity it does not prohibit, well… you're just making my argument for me- that you think permits are a good thing. I'm not going to speculate about why you think the 2A should be a privilege. But I will assert that you do.

This bill does nothing to advance the right protected by the Second Amendment. It does advance the privileges of people the state deems worthy. That holds no interest for me.
 
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm merely summarizing the implication of what you're asserting in favor of this bill.
Click to expand...

Even when you re-worded that, it still sounds like youre putting words into his mouth.... IMO

As to your assertion that VT is backward because it does not offer permits for an activity it does not prohibit, well… you're just making my argument for me- that you think permits are a good thing. I'm not going to speculate about why you think the 2A should be a privilege. But I will assert that you do.
Click to expand...

Well, there ya go again.... unless I'm misreading things :confused:

Seriously, I dont get that impression from Bubba at all.
 
Well, crap.

I hope it'll never see a vote in the Senate.

Woody

Edited to add: I understand it was only a vote to cosider HR 822 or something like that. I'll hold my crap for now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, can't have all those people toting guns in other states. Who knows where that might lead??
I recall Congress considered something like this in the opening days of the Obama Administration and it didnt go anywhere.
 
Not your way. The constitutional way is the way to go.
Click to expand...
To me I either have a gun legally on my person or I don't. I don't care about the details. I would imagine most people feel that way.
 
I'm tired of each Anti calling us licensed criminals in their eyes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was watching but I had to stop, was yelling way too many low road things at the computer monitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
H.R. 822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
Replies
6
Views
743
Rmeju
R
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
FYI: H.R. 822 vs H.R. 2900 Gun Owners of America
Replies
17
Views
738
Birch Knoll
B
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
H.R. 2900: (SAFE) Act of 2011
Replies
4
Views
426
tyeo098
T
M
  • Locked
Would H.R. 822 allow carry in Ill or NYC?
Replies
20
Views
922
sig220mw
S
M
  • Locked
National Right-To-Carry Bill
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
LAK
L
Back
Top