1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

House of Representatives H.R. 822

Discussion in 'Activism' started by 38spl, Apr 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 38spl

    38spl Member

    Mar 5, 2011
    H.R. 822 is the National Right to Carry Reciprocity bill. It does not in any way create a Federal right to carry law (which many, including me, feel would not be a good idea).

    Instead, this bill would require that all states honor any other state's CDW, just as they honor driver's licenses issued by other states. The bill has the backing of the NRA and most holders of a CDW permit who travel outside their home state.

    My representative is a co-sponsor of the bill (along with 162 other representatives) however the bill is stuck in one of the Judiciary committee's subcommittees chaired by Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner.

    Until this bill is brought forward by Mr. Sensenbrenner, it will not be voted on in his subcommittee, nor debated and voted on by the full Judiciary committee, both of which have to happen before it gets an up or down vote by the full house (where it would likely pass.)

    Mr Sennenbrenner will not accept emails from anyone outside of the 5th district of Wisconsin and states on his website that you must contact him through your own representative if you want to make him aware of anything important to you.

    I have done as he requires and below is an email I sent to my representative here in Kentucky.

    If you strip out the personal parts, you should be able to copy/paste some of the other points into an email to your own representative.

    This bill is very important to all of us that carry concealed and travel. Ultimately, it could also have a very beneficial side benefit if passed because it would give citizens in states like New Jersey, Massachusetts (and others where it is almost impossible to obtain a permit) a way to protest that out of state permit holders have rights in their state that are denied to them.

    In any event, please take the time to contact your representative and ask him or her to intercede in your behalf with Representative Sensenbrenner to get this bill scheduled for debate and a vote in subcommittee.

    Here is what I wrote:

    Hello Representative Davis.

    I am writing to ask that you, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 822, request
    Representative James Sensenbrenner move H.R. 822 forward in his

    I am a holder of a Kentucky Concealed Deadly Weapons license and I often
    visit my daughter who lives in New York state, on Long Island.

    In order to visit her and my grandchildren, my wife and I must travel
    through New Jersey and New York but neither state
    honors my Kentucky CDW license.

    As a matter of fact, even if I transport a firearm unloaded and locked in
    the trunk of my car, I still risk imprisonment in both of these states since
    US code 926A requires that I be transporting 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" and
    the "lawfully possess and carry" requirement negates any right to transport
    a firearm in or through either state since my ultimate destination (New
    York) is not a place where I can lawfully possess and carry a firearm given
    they will not honor my Kentucky license.

    Also, obtaining a New York concealed carry permit is not an option given the
    state of New York will not issue a CDW permit to me unless I own property or
    a business in their state or have an extremely compelling reason for requesting such a permit beyond personal protection.

    As far as these two states are concerned, I am therefore no different than a
    common street thug, illegally possessing a firearm, and both will not
    hesitate to arrest and imprison me when they learn that my ultimate
    destination is New York.

    I cannot understand how the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.
    Constitution does not prima-facie require that all states honor a properly
    issued concealed weapon permit obtained from another state, just as each
    state honors driver's licenses properly issued by another state.

    Apparently however, I would have to be arrested in order to have standing to
    test this contention in Federal court and being imprisoned for several years
    in order to have standing to contest my belief that my constitutional rights
    are being violated is not my idea of a good time.

    This leaves H.R. 822 as my best vehicle to remove this apparent abridgment
    of a constitutional right.

    Since Mr. Sensenbrenner requires that I write to him only through my
    representative, I ask that you contact him on my behalf and request that he
    schedule this bill for action so that it might be reported out of
    subcommittee for consideration by the full Judiciary committee and
    subsequently receive an up or down vote by the full House of

    Thank you for any assistance you may be able to provide.

  2. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Oct 21, 2005

    What's the chance of this passing?

  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Jul 5, 2007
    South Western, OK
    What ever happened to states rights? We do not need a federal law on concealed carry reciprocity. Such a law could morph into a monster with federal mandated training, etc. Sorry, i won't be asking my representative to sign a discharge petition.
  4. 38spl

    38spl Member

    Mar 5, 2011
    There is a very good possibility of passage. 163 co-sponsors - plus the two original sponsors - is an excellent indicator that there is good support in the full house.

    The problem will come in the Senate where people like Senator Shummer, (D, NY), and others on the anti-second amendment side, can be expected to oppose it, particularly since their states would be most impacted.

    Still, the House of Representatives sponsor has been raising this issue since 1996 and this is the first time it has gotten this far. We need to get Mr. Sensenbrenner to move it out of committee with a positive recommendation so we can get it past the full Judiciary committee gauntlet and get it to the House of Representatives.
  5. 38spl

    38spl Member

    Mar 5, 2011
    Again, the is NOT a national Right to carry law. Please read the first paragraph of my original post again. I am against that too.
  6. Buck Snort

    Buck Snort Member

    Oct 5, 2004
    N. CA.
    And of course that great 2nd Amendment President we have will sign it post haste when it lands on his desk! NOT!:rolleyes:
  7. 38spl

    38spl Member

    Mar 5, 2011
    Regarding Mr. Obama:

    He is of course opposed to this however to give up before even trying doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. The House of Representatives just passed a spending bill that doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of being accepted by him but it does reflect what the election of 2010 was all about so it was worth doing. Besides, he was opposed to the National Parks right to carry exception but he signed it.

    To again stress that this is not a National Right to Carry bill, or a Trojan horse that will lead to that, here is the full text of the bill:

    112th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 822

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    February 18, 2011

    Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.


    The Congress finds the following:

    (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.

    (2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (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.

    (4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

    (5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

    (6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

    (7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

    (8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

    (9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.


    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

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

    `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, 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--

    `(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    `(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    `(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.

    `(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

    `(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.

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

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

    (c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Feb 27, 2011
    Let me see if I have this straight -- in the case of carrying in a "may issue" state, such as Maryland or New York, a resident of a "shall issue" state, passing through, is to have greater rights than the residents of the "may issue" state? Somehow that doesn't sound right...

    This issue of required reciprocity needs further study.
  9. henschman

    henschman Member

    Nov 13, 2010
    Oklahoma City
    I don't believe the national government has the power under the Constitution to pass a law like this. I wouldn't support it.
  10. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Jul 5, 2010
    The Old Dominion
    This would essentially make your CCW like your drivers license.

    I would imagine that you would have to follow the rules of the state while you were there, eg. if there was no open carry, you wouldnt be allowed to open carry, but this sounds like a good way to spread concealed carry to the liberal states.

    Maybe is the people in NY/NJ/IL can see that tourists with guns dont shoot up places where ever they are, they might be more open to carry laws themselves.

    But who knows, I'm just speculating :rolleyes:
  11. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Feb 16, 2003
    Ft. Worth
    Moved thread to Activism. Please note that here in Activism there is no discussion of whether or not this is a good idea. The OP has asked for specific action from a small subset of people. If you are behind this please act, if not please remain silent.

    If you want to discuss whether it's a good idea or not start another thread.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page