Posted on 09/27/2011 5:21:08 AM PDT by marktwain
As we reported last week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security recently held a hearing on H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011."
This critically important bill, 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 clear 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 those 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 those 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. Still others deny recognition completely.
H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries.
Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked in some quarters, namely the anti-gun media, like the New York Times and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign, and New York City Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns; and, regrettably, even some so-called pro-gun organizations.
Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on each "states' rights." But states don't have rights, only 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" to oppose this bill, several provisions of the 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 handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit. 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 and misleading accusations. Read the billyourself and read our fact sheet to get the facts. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year.
You can find contact information for your U.S. Representative by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org. You may also contact your Representative by phone at (202) 225-3121.
as long as i can carry while travelling through Illinois. i hate having to stop and disarm if i want to travel anywhere west.
Right, what could possibly go wrong letting the fed govt administer national carry permits. This would be the same govt that gave us Fast & Furious et al. I don’t see any happy ending. No one has yet explained why a permit is necessary to carry anyway. Anyone???
Yes—it’s a good first step-—now, we should encourage everyone we know to contact their congress critters....
The privilege of carrying concealed can be given and taken away from you very easily since you are asking permission from the government to do so. why ask the government for permission to do something that is a right? And asking permission is tantamount to registering your firearms which has led to confiscation of them almost always in other countries. Remember Katrina?
Do I need to get a permit to speak my mind? Do people need a Going To Church Permit? Constitutional carry doesn’t require permission from government to do so.
We now have four States that have such.
1) Alaska
2) Vermont
3) Arizona
and recently this year
4) Wyoming.
If you want to convert a right into a privilege please do so individually by making a contract with the District of Criminals. The rest of us just want the ability to protect ourselves effectively without a bureaucrat making that determination for me.
National Constitutional carry now!
I don’t think a permit should be necessary, either—but it is what it is right now. IMO, it would take years, if ever, to get rid of those laws. I think this would be a stop gap measure.
I also do not think that the Constitution limits the 2nd amendment to non felons....if a miscreant was not hanged by the neck(not enough of that going on)....then they should have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else...and the whole misdemeanor for domestic issues prevention of owning firearms is totally against our rights....
(I have an acquaintance whose wife would get drunk...assault him and then call the cops on him when he refused to sit there and take it....he would get arrested...then when sober the wife would say it was her fault and some feminazi asst. DA would not allow the charges to drop....he was never convicted of a misdemeanor but his NY pistol license was pulled....he will never get it back)
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof".
So what about Illinois ... didn’t they get the email? Seriously, how do these people get away with restricting carry in that state ... we either have a Constitution and a Supreme Court upholding or not ... why is it “or not” only in Illinois?
For sure moving permitting to the national level will kill any effort to remove the permit hurdle. This is why keeping it locally is a good thing. If hyper-liberal VT can go permit-less the rest of the states can too. At that level We the People have most control. I just don’t see any good ending for a national permit. It just makes targeting gun owners easier by centralizing a database of names/addresses etc. Gun owners should know by now the fed is not to be trusted.
First, there is no federal administration involved. Please learn to read before posting misinformation.
Second, carry permits are a state issue. Some states require them, some states do not. Take it up with your state legislature, not Washington DC.
While we would obviously need to be vigilant once a law such as this was passed so as to prevent 'scope creep' via future amendments/additions, a national recognition law for states' carry permits is, in my opinion, the best we are going to get at this time. Of course, accepting this 'bone' from our law makers should not in any way slow or stop us from continuing the fight for "Vermont-style" carry in all 50 states.
Whether it can be explained form a constitutional stand-point or not (and I agree that it cannot), requirements for carry permits and other restrictions on carrying are currently a fact of life. To a conservative who supports the plain language of the Constitution, these requirements and restrictions are clearly unconstitutional. However, this does not, and will not, prevent you or me from being sentenced to prison if convicted of violating them.
I have a nine year old son and I want to be around to take part in rearing him and seeing him grow up. I used to carry whenever and however I wanted to with no regard to laws I considered unconstitutional, but my wife and I applied for and obtained our carry permits shortly after our son came in to our lives. Does this make me a "constitutional coward"? Possibly, but I think I am more of a realist who wishes to 'live to fight another day'. I assuage the guilt I feel for compromising on this issue by staying active in fighting for gun rights in my State.
Can you name anything the fed has been involved in that didnt involve mission creep? Letting the fed into anything is a BAD idea. Right now there might not be any administration but you can beat the farm it would occur for the ‘best’ of reasons. I can read both the article and the handwriting on the wall. Anyone thinking this is a free ride is grossly naive.
There are at least two ongoing court cases challenging the Illinois law. One by the NRA, another that SAF and Alan Gura are pursuing. Alan Gura has the best track record, with historic wins in the Heller and McDonald cases. His place in history is already assured, but he is going for the gold with a long term strategy.
If we followed your thinking, we would have given up after the GCA was passed.
The "mission creep" from the federal gov't is going the other way with regard to firearms. You can be part of the effort or just get out of our way.
Youre trading convenience for liberty not only for yourself but everyone else. Im not signing up for that. You havent thought this thru at all.
No, I am using the process to force the federal gov't to defer to the will of the states on concealed carry.
What is YOUR solution?
Right, what could possibly go wrong letting the fed govt administer national carry permits.
Not federally issued.
Honored in all states.
My solution is to keep things as they are and work at the state level for no permits. Many yrs ago almost none of the states even considered concealed carry and now exc for one they all have them. There a very good chance most could go the way of VT and require none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.