National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act...passed!

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Friday, November 18, 2011

On Wednesday, Nov. 16, the ongoing effort to fully vindicate the fundamental, individual right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense took a major step forward with House passage of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.” The bill, sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), which has 245 cosponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

Several amendments were offered to undermine the bill’s protections. Every one of these amendments was soundly defeated by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and included:

• Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-Texas) amendment to establish a national database of permit holders (defeated 284-139);
  
• Rep. Jackson Lee’s amendment to require permit holders to notify law enforcement officials in other states of their intention to carry a firearm in those states (defeated 299-123);
  
• Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-Tenn.) amendment to exclude permit holders under 21 years of age (defeated 276-150);
  
• Rep. Alcee Hastings’ (D-Fla.) amendment, intended to exclude permit holders whose states do not require permit applicants to apply in person (defeated 277-148);
  
• Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) amendment to apply the bill only to states in which the state legislature votes to accept it (defeated 274-147);
  
• Rep. Rob Woodall’s (R-Ga.) amendment to allow states to create their own agreements which would exempt them from the bill (defeated 283-140);
  
• Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) amendment to apply the bill only to permit holders who were required to participate in a live-fire exercise to be eligible for their permits (defeated 281-144); and,
  
• Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-R.I.) amendment to create a patchwork of recognition (and resistance) by applying the bill only between states where the attorneys general, state police chiefs, and secretaries of state have affirmed that their states’ carry laws are similar (defeated 277-146).
  

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee provided crucial support to H.R. 822’s progress over the last several months, opened debate on the bill by describing in plain terms what it does. “This legislation requires states that currently allow people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other states’ valid concealed carry permits, much like states recognize driver’s licenses issued by other states,” Rep. Smith said. Anticipating the claim that H.R. 822 would override state carry laws—a claim that would be made over and over by House members opposed to the bill—Smith added, “The bill recognizes the right of states to determine eligibility requirements for their own residents [and] laws and regulations regarding how, when, and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident will apply equally to a nonresident.” Rep. Smith concluded his opening remarks by expressing the central motive behind the bill, saying that the “fundamental right to bear arms . . . should not be constrained by state boundary lines.”

 

As the author of the bill, Rep. Stearns expanded upon Chairman Smith’s arguments, saying “t’s long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self-defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country. The right—the simple right—to defend yourself and your loved ones from a criminal is fundamental. And it's not extinguished when you simply cross a state border. . . . . nder this legislation, lawfully issued carry permits will be recognized in all states that also issue carry permits. There are now 49 states that issue these permits. Most of these states also recognize permits issued from at least some other states, while some states recognize all valid permits issued by any state. But herein, simply, lies the problem. The non-uniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from state to state. While preserving the power of the states to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this legislation…will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel this wonderful country of ours.”

Rep. Stearns also put to rest several self-serving claims recently made by a small number of groups which claim to support the Second Amendment, but never seem to find a viable pro-Second Amendment bill they can support. These groups regularly oppose important pro-gun reform legislation, either complaining that it does not achieve all of gun owners’ goals in a single stroke, or expressing a paranoid fear that the legislation contains a hidden, insidious mechanism that will lead to the destruction of our right to keep and bear arms.

“This bill does not set up a federal carry permit system or establish any federal regulations of concealed-carry permits,” Rep. Stearns said. “That power remains with the states. Additionally, this legislation does not include any new federal gun laws, nor does it call for additional federal regulation of gun ownership. In fact, it does not allow for new federal regulation, for it amends the part of the Gun Control Act that allows only such regulation as is necessary, and in this case none.”

Some of the other House members speaking in favor were Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), John Kline (R-Minn.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), and Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), each of whom reiterated that H.R. 822 does not establish a national licensing scheme or federal carry permit system, or any other federal regulation relating to carry permits or gun ownership.

 

Since the House debate, some of the same critics have focused their complaints on an amendment by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) that would require a study of law enforcement officials’ ability to check the validity of out-of-state permits. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. It is important to note that any member of Congress can request a General Accounting Office study of any issue at any time, with or without legislation. More importantly, this study will have no effect on the provisions of H.R. 822. Certainly it wouldn't force the states to use "biometric identifiers" on permits, an idea that so far exists only in the minds of these naysayers.

 

Special thanks also go to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who rose time and again to defend H.R. 822 against the anti-gun amendments its opponents put forward. Additional thanks go to Reps. Steve Austria (R-Ohio); Howard Coble (R-N.C.); Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.); Jason Altmire (R-Penn.); Dan Boren (D-Okla.); Mike Ross (D-Ark.); Trent Franks (R-Ariz.); Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.); Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.); Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.); Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.); Candice Miller (R-Mich.); Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.); and Don Young (R-Alaska) for speaking in support of H.R. 822 during the debate, and to Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) for managing the Rule which provided for consideration of the bill.

This critical legislation now moves to the Senate. Please contact your Senators and urge them to bring H.R. 822 up for a vote at the earliest possible opportunity!

 

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7178

 

 

 

 

...............now to see if it will make it through the Senate and Obama.

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Ah shit. Just remembered we have a Political section, and then I checked it and see we already have a thread on this subject. Woops.

 

................and I see we already have people who are spouting false information in it, lol.

[saiga 12 power 31]

So the bill passed? When will it take effect? What's the 1 state that doesnt allow concealed carry ?

[22_Shooter 1,560]

So the bill passed? When will it take effect? What's the 1 state that doesnt allow concealed carry ?

 

It passed the House. Now it goes to the Senate and then to the POTUS. Will it make all the way through? I dunno.

 

I think Illinois, but I could be wrong.

[Arik 565]

Jersey allows cc however its so hard to get you practically have to be governors kid. I read somewhere that only a few hundred people have a cc permit who are not somehow associated with law enforcement.

[saiga 12 power 31]

So the bill passed? When will it take effect? What's the 1 state that doesnt allow concealed carry ?

 

It passed the House. Now it goes to the Senate and then to the POTUS. Will it make all the way through? I dunno.

 

I think Illinois, but I could be wrong.

 

Yes it's Illinois. I looked it up after reading this. Also D.C.

 

Now if they would make it legal for law abiding truck drivers to carry for protection

[beefcakeb99 572]

thread title is misleading!

[MT Predator 2,294]

Not a good thing!

[Snoofer 138]

Now if they would make it legal for law abiding truck drivers to carry for protection

 

There's no law against truckers carrying.

[leadsled 40]

We should not allow reciprocity of drivers licenses. Nothing more I hate than seeing out of state license plates on my streets.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

Now if they would make it legal for law abiding truck drivers to carry for protection

Ahhhh... You've been fooled by myth.

I've been trucking for 15yrs... It is legal for a CDL driver to carry, as long he obeys the laws of each State he enters.

I EDC in my truck while covering my region, AL, MS, LA, FL & GA.

I used to carry when I was long haul too, some State's law required me to lock the gun and ammo in separate containers, one in the sleeper and one in the storage, so as to have them separate and not accessible.

Some States even if I was legal to carry, I would never have even mentioned the fact that I had a firearm, e.g. CA, IL, NJ, MA, MD, just too much hassle to be expected.

Edited November 25, 2011 by ChileRelleno

[Heath_h49008 442]

It won't pass the senate, and if it did Dear Leader would veto it.

 

This was just candy for Dems in conservative areas to point at in an election year and say "SEE!!! I'm not that leftist!"

[22_Shooter 1,560]

thread title is misleading!

 

This is true. It should have "...the house" at the end. My bad.

 

Use your mod powers to edit the title, since we mere peasants can't, bro!

 

Not a good thing!

 

Why, exactly?

[YOT 3,743]

Even if this did pass in the Senate and the POTUS didn't veto it, it still wouldn't negate or over-ride the individual State's reciprocity laws. Don't get all excited.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

Spetsnaz-12,

Its really simple.

Truckers are always told by each other, by their companies and by a very few misinformed LEOs that it is illegal to carry a firearm in a commercial vehicle.

But no one can ever quote a Federal or State law/code. Why not? Because it doesn't exist, no specific law/code written making it illegal.

Why? Because they simply cannot violate/discriminate our Rights in that manner.

 

As I said before...

All laws applicable to each individual State's firearms laws apply.

Federal law permits safe/legal transport across State lines in a prescribed manner.

If you're legally permitted & licensed to CCW in your home State & thus legal under another State's reciprocal CCW laws, you're good to go.

 

I've asked every DOT officer I've met about any such laws, 90% say there is no such law.

Yep, there is that 10%, but guess what, none KNOW all the laws and some will just lie to your face.

Just think of how many LEOs are ignorant of Concealed Carry or Open Carry laws in the first place, and how many are against it.

[saiga 12 power 31]

Thanks chile. Since you've driven a truck u know that u can't always park in the best part of town

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Even if this did pass in the Senate and the POTUS didn't veto it, it still wouldn't negate or over-ride the individual State's reciprocity laws. Don't get all excited.

 

As it's written now, it would allow anyone with a permit to carry in any other state that issues permits. Of course, you'd still have to adhere to state gun laws (like no mags over 10 rounds in NY unless mags are pre-ban). But reciprocity would be country-wide with any state that has a permit system. Unlike now, how some states don't have reciprocity with certain other states.

[Heath_h49008 442]

There might be a way around the state gun laws as well. Article IV of the Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

 

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.

 

That means every state has to accept California's gay married couples as married, and California has to accept me driving/walking into their state with a concealed PLR-16 and a beta mag any time I feel like it.

 

I think we win. If the lesbian couple is hot, it's a "Win-Win"!

[saiga 12 power 31]

There might be a way around the state gun laws as well. Article IV of the Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

 

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.

 

That means every state has to accept California's gay married couples as married, and California has to accept me driving/walking into their state with a concealed PLR-16 and a beta mag any time I feel like it.

 

I think we win. If the lesbian couple is hot, it's a "Win-Win"!

 

I agree with u but I bet Cali won't.

+1 on the lesbians

[G O B 3,516]

We should not allow reciprocity of drivers licenses. Nothing more I hate than seeing out of state license plates on my streets.

 

This is fucked up! My Father told me about needing 3 drivers licenses and 3 tags to drive in DC,MD and VA.

The Country would come to a screeching halt without drivers license and registration reciprocity!

South Dakota did not even have a drivers license until sometime in the late 1960's! They had to start issuing them so their people could drive in other States.

That said, driving is NOT a fundamental right, the 2nd amendment IS! We need universal Constitutional carry or at the very least mandatory CCW reciprocity!

[Heath_h49008 442]

Driving isn't a right?? You don't have a basic right to travel the common ways? Do you have the right to own what you wish...as in a car? if so what right does the state have to remove your free travel on the common ways while you freely own and operate your car?

 

The public roads can be considered toll roads at this point... but that's the only way driving ISN'T a right.

 

There's a reason licenses took so long to be issued... they really don't have the right to control your movement. You have the inalienable human freedom to travel with all of your property, even a car.

 

That being said, nobody gets that anymore. So it's a moot point...

[bigj480 203]

Driving isn't a right??

 

Nope, not legally. They issue licenses for the privilege.

[beefcakeb99 572]

Driving isn't a right??

 

Nope, not legally. They issue licenses for the privilege.

 

bullshit. it is a right.

[DogMan 2,343]

Well, it's actually not quite as simple a "Right" vs."Privilege". Neither one are correct in the true sense of the word. It's not a "right" like the second amendment is, however they can't just deny you for no reason. So it is your right unless they can establish legally that you are not fit. As we all know, that applies to our 2M "rights", as well. And the word "privilege" implies that they can just hand out driver's licenses to only people that kiss their ass. That is also far from factually correct. It's all semantics.

[Gaddis 1,689]

I think we win. If the lesbian couple is hot, it's a "Win-Win"!

 

That usually is the exception to the case though.

[G O B 3,516]

Big difference. You have a right to a lawyer. You have the privilege to demand a trial..

[inflightmissiletech 27]

Good luck to you who want the federal government to control the "right" to conceal cary. You will regret the idea sooner or later. Most Pro-Gun states know this is a bad idea. 822 is a bad idea because it will implement a list of CCW permit holders for the purposes of verifying the authenticity of a CCW while out of ones home state. This list will eventually be held by the ATF and the Department of Homeland Security who we all know can be trusted with such information. Lists were created of groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Japanese in WWII United States, and gun owners in Great Britain. A quick google search of facts regarding these incidents should prove how bad an idea it is to be on a list like this. It is a very bad idea when the list of like minded people with the ability and will to defend themselves gets into the hands of the enemy of their freedom. Trust all you want, it is out of my control lest phone calls and letters to representatives and senators.

After the POTUS signs this into law then will you stop and think, "How did that happen?" It will only happen if anti-gunner president, and gun-control senate think it is a good idea. I think as professionals who have been dealing with the law for years, both writing and un-writing laws, they may have more insight than you or I.

Nancy Pelosi will "Sh;t herself a little."[WAITE]

In fact she may even "F^ck(ed) up her pants the chair she was sitting in and the carpet on the floor(.)"[sPETSNAZ-12]

Because she never thought you would fall for it.

 

Reciprocity is not mandatory under the bill so it won't change much as Illinois and California may still not accept out of state CCW's. Also, people from Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont will lose their right to conceal cary, as constitutional cary will soon fall under federal review. It will be replaced with the right to obtain a license to conceal cary and adhere to strict laws regarding the practice.

If I am wrong, one or two of you will gain rights in states that choose to grant them, while other states that were doing just fine on their own will now have to answer to the federal government regarding their CCW permitting systems. If I am right we will all be on a list sitting on Eric Holders desk while settling for switching '"Shall not be infringed,"' 'with "you need a CCW"' best case scenario [sLY].

 

Some of these laws regarding the practice include improper display of concealment, which is if the firearm becomes revealed, the CCW holder will be in breech of the law and can be charged with criminal trespass and brandishing of a lethal weapon. These two infractions combined can be enough to loose your right to bear arms. An other new law for some of us is the requirement to disclose. The requirement to disclose is the requirement that if confronted by a law enforcement officer the first and only thing you are allowed to say is an admission of being guilty of having a CCW and carrying concealed. This is what happens when you don't do it right.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc&feature=player_embedded

 

But what do I know, I just spout false information. If it passes, it passed through the presidents office. If it passes, it passed through the department of justice and they advised the president what their (ERIC HOLDER) opinion was. If it passes, it passed through the senate where they can add amendments to the bill before it passes, and the senate right now is not particularly pro-gun. How can this end up as a "Win for the Good Guys?"

 

If it ain't broke don't go sending it to the federal government to fix. What kind of Mambi-Pambi Bologna is this Sh;t you have all been reading?

 

NOTE: edited to remove vulgarity- apologies

Edited November 27, 2011 by inflightmissiletech

[G O B 3,516]

I do believe that this is just 'window dressing' for the blue dogs in the house. Now they can claim they are pro 2nd amendment in the coming campaign season. Chances of making it thru the Senate and getting signed by BO? 0%

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Good luck to you who want the federal government to control the "right" to conceal cary. You will regret the idea sooner or later. Most Pro-Gun states know this is a bad idea. 822 is a bad idea because it will implement a list of CCW permit holders for the purposes of verifying the authenticity of a CCW while out of ones home state.

 

There is no "list", nor does this bill call for a "list". The one amendment allows for LE to check validity of out-of-state permits. This can be done in numerous ways, and I don't see a "list" mentioned. (If you have a permit, you're on some sort of list anyway. You had to go through government channels to obtain said permit, did you not?)

 

Like I said in the other thread, we'll just have to agree to disagree. With your statement of talking how anything can be added once it's in the senate, then it's obvious you're not going to like anything related to guns being passed, even if it's good/seemingly good, because there is a possibility for it to be amended at the last minute. So again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

But what do I know, I just spout false information.

 

Not entirely. But when I wrote that up above, it was when your only post in the other thread was "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE ISSUING AND CONTROLLING CCW PERMITS!!! ASKLHASKHASJKDWIU!@@#3298382@#)(!!!!!". So yes, when I posted that, you were indeed spouting false information.

[DogMan 2,343]

Good luck to you who want the federal government to control the "right" to conceal cary. You will regret the idea sooner or later. Most Pro-Gun states know this is a bad idea. 822 is a bad idea because it will implement a list of CCW permit holders for the purposes of verifying the authenticity of a CCW while out of ones home state. This list will eventually be held by the ATF and the Department of Homeland Security who we all know can be trusted with such information. Lists were created of groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Japanese in WWII United States, and gun owners in Great Britain. A quick google search of facts regarding these incidents should prove how bad an idea it is to be on a list like this. It is a very bad idea when the list of like minded people with the ability and will to defend themselves gets into the hands of the enemy of their freedom. Trust all you want, it is out of my control lest phone calls and letters to representatives and senators.

After the POTUS signs this into law then will you stop and think, "How did that happen?" It will only happen if anti-gunner president, and gun-control senate think it is a good idea. I think as professionals who have been dealing with the law for years, both writing and un-writing laws, they may have more insight than you or I.

Nancy Pelosi will "Sh;t herself a little."[WAITE]

In fact she may even "F^ck(ed) up her pants the chair she was sitting in and the carpet on the floor(.)"[sPETSNAZ-12]

Because she never thought you would fall for it.

 

Reciprocity is not mandatory under the bill so it won't change much as Illinois and California may still not accept out of state CCW's. Also, people from Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont will lose their right to conceal cary, as constitutional cary will soon fall under federal review. It will be replaced with the right to obtain a license to conceal cary and adhere to strict laws regarding the practice.

If I am wrong, one or two of you will gain rights in states that choose to grant them, while other states that were doing just fine on their own will now have to answer to the federal government regarding their CCW permitting systems. If I am right we will all be on a list sitting on Eric Holders desk while settling for switching '"Shall not be infringed,"' 'with "you need a CCW"' best case scenario [sLY].

 

Some of these laws regarding the practice include improper display of concealment, which is if the firearm becomes revealed, the CCW holder will be in breech of the law and can be charged with criminal trespass and brandishing of a lethal weapon. These two infractions combined can be enough to loose your right to bear arms. An other new law for some of us is the requirement to disclose. The requirement to disclose is the requirement that if confronted by a law enforcement officer the first and only thing you are allowed to say is an admission of being guilty of having a CCW and carrying concealed. This is what happens when you don't do it right.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc&feature=player_embedded

 

But what do I know, I just spout false information. If it passes, it passed through the presidents office. If it passes, it passed through the department of justice and they advised the president what their (ERIC HOLDER) opinion was. If it passes, it passed through the senate where they can add amendments to the bill before it passes, and the senate right now is not particularly pro-gun. How can this end up as a "Win for the Good Guys?"

 

If it ain't broke don't go sending it to the federal government to fix. What kind of Mambi-Pambi Bologna is this Sh;t you have all been reading?

 

NOTE: edited to remove vulgarity- apologies

So........let's reject and fight against any pro-gun legislation because it might be a trap? Look man, politicians might be liars and cheaters and scallywags but they aren't that f'ing smart. They couldn't put together the kind of scheme you are talking about if their lives depended on it. You give them way too much credit. This proposal is what it is and that's all.