H.R. 822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (house vote today)

gop.gov ^ | 11/16/11 | staff

[umgud]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, the House is scheduled consider H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, under a rule. The rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Additionally, the rule makes in order ten amendments, each debatable for ten minutes each, and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill was introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 18, 2011, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill would allow individuals with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also issues concealed firearm permits or licenses, or in any other state that does not generally prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. H.R. 822 would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm. The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state. The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety.

[umgud]

I'm guessing, hoping this will pass the house and go to the senate. I'm hoping Harry will give it a up or down vote. Harry, for all his faults, is pro-gun, but we'll see. I don't know how it would fare in the senate.

If passed, this would be a real game changer for CA and other may-issue states. Here in CA, our CCW permits are state permits issued by the various counties and cities. Most jurisdictions in the state just don't issue permits. This would mean that out of state ccw permit holders could legally carry concealed in San Francisco, but locals could not.

I anxiously await the turmoil.

[Iron Munro]

If it passes we will see some real parsing and doublespeak in places like New York to avoid complying.

[mvpel]

If it passes we will see some real parsing and doublespeak in places like New York to avoid complying.

Or, just like open carry or "wiretapping," the cops and prosecutors will ignore the law and trump up charges just for an excuse to rough you up and put you in handcuffs for a while.

[deoetdoctrinae]

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

I hate morons.

[klb99]

I opposed this on 10th Amendment grounds. Don’t want the feds interfering in state issues at all......this will require them to have access to all the gun purchase/registration/CCW applications in all the states. None of their business.

[Joe Brower]

[umgud]

I opposed this on 10th Amendment grounds.

I don't disagree with you. A better move would be a law that would allow or force SCOTUS to clean up 2A issues. The 2A is a national right and needs to be better defined and defended.

[Jay Santos CP]

this will require them to have access to all the gun purchase/registration/CCW applications in all the states

Interesting point/position. But don't all state CCW background checks ultimately go through the FBI already?

[Dan Nunn]

No, it won’t. Read the law.

[Dan Nunn]

Bill, I mean. Hopefully law soon.

[klb99]

The DOJ does b/g checks in CA for purchases - for each purchase long gun and handgun. Don’t know if feds have access to registration and permit apps - which are almost impossible to get in populous counties. They keep trying to get registration required for long guns. CA is lost.

[klb99]

Haven’t read the bill, just the article here, but It’s not a stretch to understand that once the feds “audit” the requirements for and number of CCW permits, they will demand to see the registration records for said weapons.

[Jim Noble]

Congress could mandate recognition of all states CCW permits in DC tomorrow, since Congress has the power to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the District.

This would probably do more good that this complex bill.

[from occupied ga]

If it passes we will see some real parsing and doublespeak in places like New York to avoid complying.

Not really - the bill has a big out for state governments in that it sets the reciprocal carry between states with like carry license requirements.

[white17x]

I don’t like it at all. What they ‘give’ they can take away.

Also not every state requires you to list individual guns on your permit. Some states require no permit at all.

[Phlyer]

I oppose this, but not on 10th Amendment grounds. The 2nd Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights in that there are no limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. It 'shall not be infringed.' The others, for example the 1st Amendment, all have limitations on the rights, and therefore limitations on the delegated authority of the federal govenment to secure those rights. But under the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is charged to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed, which means the 10th Amendment does not apply since there is a delegated power.

What I disagree with is the idea that it takes a further act of Congress to enable this right. That equally implies that another act of Congress could take it away. The Supreme Court needs to read the Constitution, including the 'full faith and credit' clause and make concealed carry licenses valid in any jurisdiction- including on federal property.

The only restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that it is applied to 'the people'. That is the body of citizens who are bound by that contract among ourselves called the Constitution. The direct and unambiguous way to interpret that is anyone who can vote is part of 'the People.' Since the states get to decide who can vote within their sovereign territory, it is reasonable to say that the states can determine who is qualified to carry a weapon (leaving out minors, those who are not competent mentally, criminals, etc.) Once the state determines someone is a valid voter, then they are part of 'the People' and their right to keep and bear arms *shall* not be infringed - by anyone. Your voter's registration card is your concealed carry permit.

Or at least, it should be.

[klb99]

I like it! Using your argument, Congress should be the watchdog for states that try to “infringe” on the people’s right to keep and bear....instead of always trying to disarm the citizenry.

[Dan Nunn]

Your final sentence is why this bill is needed.

Or at least, it should be.

It isn't. Because we live in a world of facts, not make-believe where we wish the government followed the Constitution, this bill is necessary.

If you are willing to fight the battle from a Constitutional angle, take your firearm to NY or Maryland and let a cop know you're carrying.

For the rest of us, let's pass this bill.

[TexasRedeye]

While it makes for good Conservative “sound bites”, this bill is a complete waste of time in the House. It will pass with a large (30 - 40 Dem) bi-partisan vote, no doubt. Unfortunately, Reid (pro gun that he and the NRA says he is) will never let come up in the Senate. Obama cannot let this bill hit the floor and he will instruct Reid to follow his orders. Both know that if it did appear on the Senate floor it would pass and Obama cannot let that happen.

[Dan Nunn]

Please read the NRA's Myth vs. Fact responses to these arguments.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7117