H.R.822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

[J.T]

OpenCongress SummaryWould require all states to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms as long as the laws of the vistors' home states allow them to do so. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show# Do states have the right/authority to limit concealed carry of firearms? If this passages, it would seem to be an indication that they do not (after all, this bill doesn't simply mandate recognition of out-of-state permits, but would mean someone from Arizona could carry concealed in any state with no need for a permit). This would then seem to be a stepping stone to abolishing CCPs and state-mandated requirements for the acquirement of a special license to carry concealed (see this thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32479-What-is-the-Purpose-of-the-Concealment-Tax)). So where do you stand on this battle between gunowners' rights and 'states' rights'?

I'd rather see an outright abolition of CCP requirements, myself, but I could be convinced to support this measure as a step toward that goal. If one accepts that a state has the right to require a CCP, however, then you could argue that this is a violation of state sovereignty.

[Missileman]

OpenCongress SummaryWould require all states to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms as long as the laws of the vistors' home states allow them to do so. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show# Do states have the right/authority to limit concealed carry of firearms? If this passages, it would seem to be an indication that they do not (after all, this bill doesn't simply mandate recognition of out-of-state permits, but would mean someone from Arizona could carry concealed in any state with no need for a permit). This would then seem to be a stepping stone to abolishing CCPs and state-mandated requirements for the acquirement of a special license to carry concealed (see this thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32479-What-is-the-Purpose-of-the-Concealment-Tax)). So where do you stand on this battle between gunowners' rights and 'states' rights'?

I'd rather see an outright abolition of CCP requirements, myself, but I could be convinced to support this measure as a step toward that goal. If one accepts that a state has the right to require a CCP, however, then you could argue that this is a violation of state sovereignty.

Are you sure this doesn't just make a CCP from one state acceptable in all, like a driver's license?

[ConHog]

OpenCongress SummaryWould require all states to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms as long as the laws of the vistors' home states allow them to do so. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show# Do states have the right/authority to limit concealed carry of firearms? If this passages, it would seem to be an indication that they do not (after all, this bill doesn't simply mandate recognition of out-of-state permits, but would mean someone from Arizona could carry concealed in any state with no need for a permit). This would then seem to be a stepping stone to abolishing CCPs and state-mandated requirements for the acquirement of a special license to carry concealed (see this thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32479-What-is-the-Purpose-of-the-Concealment-Tax)). So where do you stand on this battle between gunowners' rights and 'states' rights'?

I'd rather see an outright abolition of CCP requirements, myself, but I could be convinced to support this measure as a step toward that goal. If one accepts that a state has the right to require a CCP, however, then you could argue that this is a violation of state sovereignty.

This is you being silly, again. Do you know that once upon a time a driver's license was ONLY valid in the state issued? Meaning that yes if you lived in Oklahoma and drove in Texas and got stopped they could technically write you a ticket. And they used to do so, but then the federal government stepped in and said "no this is ridiculous, if you're licensed in your home state you can drive anywhere in the US."


Same thing here.

[J.T]

Are you sure this doesn't just make a CCP from one state acceptable in all, like a driver's license?
From what I've read, it would in effect mean that if you can concealed carry in your home state, you can in any state you visit. In Arizona, you need no permit to carry concealed (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html). If you can legally own a firearm and you're at least 21 years of age, you can carry concealed if you wish. This law would mean that persons from Arizona would be able to carry concealed while visiting any other state according to the rules in Arizona- no permit necessary. It forces states to recognize the rights, not the permits, granted (or protected, depending on one's outlook) by other states.

Now they can argue about the words 'valid permit to carry' in the law, but it's only a matter of time before someone from Arizona raises the point that AZ requires no such permit (also Alaska) and that denying the right to carry concealed would be a violation of their rights as granted by AZ, which the other states are required (if this law passes) to honour. Of course, the other side can argue that the permit one has from another state does not require the same things as their won permits (differences in training classes, for instance), and tat this law therefore violates the states right and authority to enforce their laws about concealed carry. This could a matter of gunowners' rights versus states' rights and powers if any lawyer decides to make it such.

[ConHog]

From what I've read, it would in effect mean that if you can concealed carry in your home state, you can in any state you visit. In Arizona, you need no permit to carry concealed (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html). If you can legally own a firearm and you're at least 21 years of age, you can carry concealed if you wish. This law would mean that persons from Arizona would be able to carry concealed while visiting any other state according to the rules in Arizona- no permit necessary. It forces states to recognize the rights, not the permits, granted (or protected, depending on one's outlook) by other states.

Now they can argue about the words 'valid permit to carry' in the law, but it's only a matter of time before someone from Arizona raises the point that AZ requires no such permit (also Alaska) and that denying the right to carry concealed would be a violation of their rights as granted by AZ, which the other states are required (if this law passes) to honour. Of course, the other side can argue that the permit one has from another state does not require the same things as their won permits (differences in training classes, for instance), and tat this law therefore violates the states right and authority to enforce their laws about concealed carry. This could a matter of gunowners' rights versus states' rights and powers if any lawyer decides to make it such.



No it wouldn't JT, it's only talking about reciprocity , just like with DL.

[logroller]

Sec 926D.
‘(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.
'(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.’.

As the name of the bill states, it is a reciprocity. Provided you are authorized to carry in your State of residence, you would be allowed to carry according to the ccw laws of the State you visiting-- just like a DL.

[J.T]

As the name of the bill states, it is a reciprocity. Provided you are authorized to carry in your State of residence, you would be allowed to carry according to the ccw laws of the State you visiting-- just like a DL.

Which raises the question of those states (Alaska and Arizona) which don't require a permit in the first place. Their people have the right to carry concealed (even without a permit), yet this bill (which promises to force other states to recognize that right when they visit) seems to forget they exist. This is bound to be raised and taken to the courts at some point following the passage of this bill.

What if Arizona just stopped bothering to issue permits along the lines of those being discussed, but merely issued 'certificates' saying you've completed a recognized course for the benefit of employers wanting to know you're qualified to be armed (eg: for a security position) (all the permits really are now), since they're no longer necessary (and therefore pointless other than for the benefit of employers) within Az and then you (as an Arizona citizen) visited another state? Would you still have the right to carry concealed or not?

[Little-Acorn]

Always a hoot to see people trying to tell each other what a bill says, when none of them have even read it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
HR 822 IH
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
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.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
1
(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.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This will probably get shot down as most gun bills (on both sides) are, or die in a committee somewhere, likely in the Senate.

[logroller]

Which raises the question of those states (Alaska and Arizona) which don't require a permit in the first place. Their people have the right to carry concealed (even without a permit), yet this bill (which promises to force other states to recognize that right when they visit) seems to forget they exist. This is bound to be raised and taken to the courts at some point following the passage of this bill.


No law is keeping a constitutional carry state from issuing ccw permits-- So, what grievance is there?

Alaska does offer ccw permits, they just don't require one within their own borders. Some states even offer non-resident ccw permits. If the residents of a state wish to be issued a CCW permit, they should petition their own lawmakers; not complain because another state does.

I believe there's hope on the horizon JT. Wisconsin was a no-issue state until a judge found the ban unconstitutional; and WI lawmakers have since passed shall-issue laws which take effect in November. There are challenges against Illinois' ban as well. IMO, what this bill will really do is implore local/ state court challenges to the outright ban of CCW permits--as many may-issue states allow permits to be issued at the sole discretion of local and county admin. Though this bill doesn't change the legality of CCW bans, it ripens the right-to-carry issue within the scope of federal jurisprudence. A necessary step to putting the issue before SCOTUS.:thumb:


edit: AZ offers permits too. 162,116 active permits as of this post--http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/

[J.T]

No law is keeping a constitutional carry state from issuing ccw permits

Nobody said there was

Alaska does offer ccw permits
Nobody said they didn't


If the residents of a state wish to be issued a CCW permit, they should petition their own lawmakers; not complain because another state does.
So you object to this bill?

AZ offers permits too.
No shit. I said before that they do. It's a holdover from when they were required that primarily serves security companies now.

[ConHog]

Which raises the question of those states (Alaska and Arizona) which don't require a permit in the first place. Their people have the right to carry concealed (even without a permit), yet this bill (which promises to force other states to recognize that right when they visit) seems to forget they exist. This is bound to be raised and taken to the courts at some point following the passage of this bill.

What if Arizona just stopped bothering to issue permits along the lines of those being discussed, but merely issued 'certificates' saying you've completed a recognized course for the benefit of employers wanting to know you're qualified to be armed (eg: for a security position) (all the permits really are now), since they're no longer necessary (and therefore pointless other than for the benefit of employers) within Az and then you (as an Arizona citizen) visited another state? Would you still have the right to carry concealed or not?

Read the bill JT, just as a state couldn't say okay no more tests for DL , just come by and get one and other states wouldn't have to honor such a ridiculous thing the same thing would apply here.

[J.T]

Read the bill JT, just as a state couldn't say okay no more tests for DL , just come by and get one

There's a federal law saying that can't do that?

the same thing would apply here.

There are federal standards for DL or CCP testing? What, exactly, is to prevent Az from saying 'some one, show us an ID, and answer one question ("Gun safety is important: TRUE|FALSE") and get your CCP to take with you when you visit another state? Is there some federal law about it?

[ConHog]

There's a federal law saying that can't do that?


There are federal standards for DL or CCP testing? What, exactly, is to prevent Az from saying 'some one, show us an ID, and answer one question ("Gun safety is important: TRUE|FALSE") and get your CCP to take with you when you visit another state? Is there some federal law about it?

Why, yes actually there IS a federal law regarding DL. The Real ID Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act


Now so far, only 38 states have complied , but eventually all will have to. Doesn't have much to do with the actual test itself, but I figure if you can be obtuse, so can I.

[J.T]

Doesn't have much to do with the actual test itself

So no, it's not what you claimed and it doesn't do what you claimed. That's twice you've refuted your own bullshit today.

[ConHog]

So no, it's not what you claimed and it doesn't do what you claimed. That's twice you've refuted your own bullshit today.

What did I claim it was?

[J.T]

There are federal standards for DL or CCP testingWhy, yes actually there IS

Then you went on to state that no, what you linked isn't what we're discussing.

I'm beginning to suspect you're not just playing stupid.

[ConHog]

Then you went on to state that no, what you linked isn't what we're discussing.

I'm beginning to suspect you're not just playing stupid.

Sir, you're a jackass. You first said that there was no national law concerning driver's license. There is in fact such a law. I then clarified and said that the law didn't have anything to do with the driving test to receive a DL. That doesn't mean the law isn't about DL though, because it is.

Jesus , are you even capable of an honest straight up discussion?

[J.T]

Sir, you're a jackass. You first said that there was no national law concerning driver's license.

Wrong again, liar. The question at hand is whether there is any federal law setting up standard requirements for testing to obtain a CCP.

Why can't you ever be honest?

[ConHog]

Wrong again, liar. The question at hand is whether there is any federal law setting up standard requirements for testing to obtain a CCP.

Why can't you ever be honest?

No stupid, the discussion was saying that this will be nothing more than setting reciprocity between states that have CCP just like their is with DL. Just as with DL the federal law isn't concerned with how each state determines who gets a license, only in that each state recognizes the licenses from other states as valid.

[J.T]

First you claim the subject at hand is REAL ID. Then, in the next post, you claim the matter at hand was reciprocity.

Can you keep your own bullshit straight for two consecutive posts?

[ConHog]

First you claim the subject at hand is REAL ID. Then, in the next post, you claim the matter at hand was reciprocity.

Can you keep your own bullshit straight for two consecutive posts?

You're going back on ignore until you learn to discuss things like an adult. See you never.

[logroller]

JT what is your problem with this bill-- the reciprocity of a CCW permit isn't granted when somebody doesn't have such a permit? Well DUH; perhaps you don't understand what reciprocity entails.