Posted by 
Rep. Cliff B. Stearns (R.-Fla.) introduced H.R. 822, the National Right-to Carry Reciprocity Act, on Nov. 16.
(Thanks to HUMAN EVENTS Guns & Patriots for publication. Link here for FREE weekly newsletter.)
Nation waits for Senate, White House action a month after House passes HR 822
by: Raquel Okyay
Congratulations 112th Congress for seeking to amend title 18 of the United States Code, giving law abiding citizens with firearm permits the right to carry concealed handguns outside of the state in which they reside, as long as such state issues concealed firearm permits already, or does not have laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.
H.R. 822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 – passed by a majority vote 272 to 154 on November 16.
The state of Illinois and the District of Columbia have laws in place to restrict residents from carrying concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses, making them immune from this legislation.
Nevertheless, the measure still provides a much needed national standard for the rest of the 49 states.
Currently, gun permits are not recognized across state lines, so a gun-carrying, traveling citizen must obtain a permit from each state he or she chooses to visit. H.R. 822 eliminates this unnecessary burden on free citizens and forces states to recognize legal gun permits, in a similar way that states acknowledge driver’s licenses from California to New York.
This common sense action does three things: a) It moves us closer to fully protecting our Second Amendment rights; b) it affords us the opportunity to defend ourselves wherever we are; and c) it acts as a preventative tool against crime.
The impact of right to carry laws has been studied extensively, with the vast preponderance of studies finding that crime rates have fallen in those states after they have adopted such laws. No credible study has ever found that the enactment of such laws has produced an increase in crimes, suicides or accidental deaths.
This amendment is so good. Rather than propose spending bill after spending bill, the 112th Congress has set forth an initiative that guarantees Constitutional rights to the citizen and does not tax, regulate, and restrict them.
H.R. 822 says that our 2nd and 14th Amendment’ rights are relevant in today’s society. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights in particular applicable to the states. Yes. Congress is finally doing something right!
Yet blockage in the Senate and a veto from the White House may happen, anyway. That is because politicians hungry to govern our freedoms and police our actions do not comprehend the fundamental value of the Second Amendment.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson , 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Instead, naysayers blame firearms for violent crimes and seek to remedy problems by usurping the Constitution and banning guns altogether.
They consistently ignore “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” They ignore the right of the people to be protected under the umbrella of the Bill of Rights, and they ignore the real benefits that go along with firearm ownership.
Please do me a favor and always, always, always reject the notion that guns are the cause of violent crimes. It is an aging, erroneous mantra that to the clear minded person carries zero weight.
A right to carry, in fact, is one of the few rights Americans are truly entitled to. Not so funny, is it, that a runaway federal government handing away entitlements at a rate we cannot afford is now eager to take away an entitlement that costs the tax payer nothing.
Go figure.
Same post ?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48052
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
The first sentence of the fifth paragraph is factually incorrect. Many states have reciprocal agreements regarding concealed carry permits. If you possess a Pennsylvania permit you can carry in many other states without obtaining an additional permit. Same is true for a Florida permit.
By robert smith on Dec 16, 2011
Yes, it’s the same post, Inquisitor.
Thank you for very much for your comment, Robert, and welcome to my blog!
I suppose an “always” would fix it.
Currently, gun permits are not [always] recognized across state lines, so a gun-carrying, traveling citizen must obtain a permit from each state he or she chooses to visit.
By Raquel on Dec 16, 2011
Response to Robert Smith: It is a lot more complicated than that. Currently there are eleven (10) states that do not recognize concealed weapons carry permits issued by any other states in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (CA, CT, HI, IL MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, & RI) Of these, one (IL) does not have any provisions for issuing concealed weapons carry permits and does not allow concealed weapons carry.
Conversely, there are eleven (11) states that honor all other states’ concealed weapons carry permits in compliance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (AK, AZ, IA, ID, IN, MI, MO, OK, SD, TN, & UT). One state (VT) does not require a permit for concealed weapons carry and therefore does not issue concealed weapons carry permits.
The remaining twenty-seven (28) states recognize some other states’ concealed weapons carry permits but do not recognize other states’ concealed weapons carry permits, again in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. These remaining 28 states are also not consistent with each other thus creating a mind-numbing and constantly changing environment for travelers with valid state issued permits for concealed weapons carry.
In some states, you can not even possess a handgun without a permit and permits are only issued to residents with a “demonstrated need”; effectively violating residents’ U.S. Constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights .
We should have the right to protect ourselves in any state while traveling or on vacation. All but one state have passed concealed carry laws because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves their home. However, as listed earlier, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and creates great confusion and potential safety and legal problems for the traveler. H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized in accordance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, while being 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. It would authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with the restrictions applied to the concealed carry permit of that state. This provision protects the ability of the various states to determine the conditions of concealed carry, much like they determine their individual state traffic laws.
The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
Inquisitor: Thank You!!
By Raquel on Dec 16, 2011
Actually, the addition of “always” does not correct the sentence. A gun-carrying, traveling citizen need not obtain a permit for each state he or she chooses. If you go to a concealed carry reciprocity map, you will see that with a non-resident Pennsylvania concealed carry permit ,the permittee can carry in 23 states.
I opposed this legislation on the grounds that I did not want the Federal Government to have a law in place regarding concealed carry that they can now amend.
By robert smith on Dec 16, 2011
Again, to Robert Smith:
The Federal Government already has a law (actually it might be an ATF regulation) regarding who can possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition.
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting setting aside of a conviction.
But more importantly, according to the US Constitution, the Federal Government needs to act:
“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [Amendment II].” This statement does not create, limit or endow a right; it is an affirmation of a people’s right. It also does not delegate to the United States the power to infringe upon that right. Instead, it prohibits any infringement of that right by any entity, not just the Federal Government of the United States, but also the States or any political subdivision thereof. “THIS CONSTITUTION . . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING [Article VI].” All the States have reviewed and ratified the US Constitution, in its entirety, and are thereby bound by it. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE [Amendment X].” The right (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to (and belongs to) the people and the power to infringe on that right is prohibited by Amendment II without any qualification or limitation.
infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
This is not an issue of States’ rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Article IV, Section 1 and Amendment XIV] to prevent States from denying citizens’ US Constitutional rights!
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
Robert Smith:
No matter how many times I read the rant by Dudley Brown and his National Association for Gun Rights, (and those who repeat it) I can’t understand the statements that we should not do anything because maybe sometime somebody may make some changes to some laws or Bill[s] that may not be good for the furtherance of our 2nd Amendment rights.
(At least you are not asking us to send him money [On-line estimates of $150,000 annually] so that he can work hard to help us do nothing.) ??????
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
Robert: The amendment does not require us to participate, rather it allows us to. The amendment reads:
[A] person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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 possess or 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.
By Raquel on Dec 16, 2011
It is true that gun traveling citizens cannot travel freely from state to state. That’s why a national standard is so important. Look what happened in New York.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577101074044272042.html?grcc=7ed3d6b12bdf041cd71b86662a24e481Z0&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news
By Raquel on Dec 16, 2011
Raquel, I was referring to:
US Constitution
AMENDMENT XIV – Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
· · ·
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
Inquisitor: Yes. I hear ya!
By Raquel on Dec 16, 2011
There are many – many stories like the one Raquel referenced. H.R. 822 does not set a national standard, it only requires that if a State issues concealed weapons permits or allows it’s residents to carry concealed, that State must honor concealed carry permits issued by other States.
Maybe someday the SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction? But until then, under our current legal system, the SCOTUS has ruled that concealed carry is a privilege and the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment.
The power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; and, unless the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.
The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum lawful and necessary criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. If, those criteria are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.
Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont’s, whereby each and every time a person’s ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been “averted”. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people’s 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.
Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person’s ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples’ rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.
In summary, unless all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits.
Our goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. While an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because no one, except the delusional, truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011
Should we quote the Constitution to the people in Chicago and Washington, DC whose political establishment still refuse to follow Supreme Court decisions?
In the New York matter he was following federal law, how will this help?
How does this protect the right of the people in Illinois where there is no concealed carry right?
I suppose I could believe everything the NRA says Oh, wait they endorsed Harry Reid for re-election
By robert smith on Dec 16, 2011
Robert Smith,
1. Yes
2. Provides legal recourse.
3. It doesn’t.
4. Don’t believe everything anyone says.
The smallest deed is far better than the grandest intention. Do something!
By Inquisitor on Dec 16, 2011