Posted on 10/20/2011 7:59:47 PM PDT by marktwain
[Last] week, the House Judiciary considered amendments to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill, and defeated all anti-gun amendments offered in an effort to weaken or gut the legislation.
The legislation is an important pro-gun reform that will provide for the recognition of carry permits in all states that issue permits. (For detailed information on the legislation, click here.)
The bill, as originally written, was successfully amended at the outset of the markup with a substitute that added a number of important protections. Foremost, it amended the language so that visitors to states that have laws requiring licenses just for possession of a handgun, do not need a possession license, which is often unavailable to nonresidents.
The substitute also made clear that in states with local jurisdictions that restrict carrying or possession, visitors will not need to apply for special permits from those jurisdictions.
Opponents of the bill proposed a number of anti-gun amendments that sought to use misdemeanor convictions to disqualify people from the benefits of the bill. All of these efforts were defeated, rejecting the anti-gun efforts to weaken the bill. Clearly, the majority of committee members believe that revocation of fundamental constitutional rights is not a legitimate punishment for misdemeanor violations.
One pro-gun amendment was defeated as well. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment, brought an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to carry firearms in the District of Columbia. As written, H. R. 822 does not apply reciprocity to jurisdictions that completely ban Right-to-Carry. While the amendment was well intentioned, as Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) pointed out, the bill "does not confer any expansion of the right to bear arms on the residents of the District of Columbia," and the Gohmert amendment would only have benefited visitors. It was the feeling of the majority, including nearly all those who support the bill, that H. R. 822 is not the proper vehicle for dealing with the serious problems presented by Washington, D.C.'s harshly restrictive gun laws. As Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, "this is a debate best saved for another day and another bill." NRA has fought for many years to restore the Second Amendment rights of D.C. residents and will continue to work toward that goal by fighting for passage of H.R. 645, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act.
An amendment was also added calling on the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the impact of this legislation. Unsurprisingly, opponents of the bill voted against the amendment, probably fearing that it will show, like previous government and academic studies, that the many objections they make to lawful Right-to-Carry are without basis. The study will have no impact on the reforms included in the legislation and will have no effect on concealed carry laws. This study will not delay the implementation of the bill, because it will not take place until after the legislation has taken effect.
The committee will take up the legislation and vote on final passage when Congress returns from its recess. This legislation will be an important advance in the protection of the fundamental right to self-defense, whether at home or travelling through most of America.
Full House consideration of the legislation is expected to happen in the next few weeks. Please contact your member of Congress today and urge their support for H.R. 822 and opposition to any amendments anti-gun legislators are expected to bring to weaken the legislation. You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
Whats the point, it’ll never get past the Senate, and would never be signed by Obama.
I still prefer that the federal government keeps its nose out of this. It is being well-handled by the various states as they make reciprocity agreements. Doesn’t the 10th Amendment mean anything?
As for those states that don’t welcome conceal carry (Maryland, Illinois, etc.), screw ‘em. I either avoid them or make sure that I spend as little time and money as I go through them.
Their refusal to endorse and enact it will be another nail in their respective coffins in 2012. It only provides additional proof that Democrats are incapable of governing and must be voted out of any and all elected offices.
why bother. no leverage. boehner threw it all away for nothing. it’s all window dressing. these republocrats have got to go.
Maryland is now a marxist shithole. Their cops will buddyfuck other cops from different jurisdictions for carrying a concealed weapon with a valid home state license.
This law is badly needed esp. for law enforcement officers travelling to out-of-state duty stations, meetings, etc. as well as for the average citizen to protect themselves from the animals that inhabit Democrat-dominated major cities.
I have a friend who I’m seeing tomorrow, a retired, disabled NYPD copy, who saw fellow officers jumped and robbed in Mayor Nagin’s Chocolate City of New Orleans. He had his weapon and helped save the unarmed officers from harm.
Lessons learned.
It is worth it just to have Reid and some others go on record against it. With 49 states with some kind of carry, it is hard to show any justification for opposing this. It is good to make them stand up and be counted.
LEOs can already carry nationwide under Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (HR218). My dad is retired LAPD.
Unfortunately, the communist states like California and New York are still harassing LEOs from other jurisdictions because they believe their laws are supreme.
The piecemeal system we have now (res state CCW + Florida non-res or Utah non-res) needs to be fixed.
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.