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

read the bill for yourselves here
H.R. 822

So this is a NRA sponsored bill
A National Right to carry bill...
the most intresting part is this section

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--

the NRA has also plubished a handy FAQ to support this effort

• H.R. 822 recognizes the significant impact of the landmark cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which found that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state law.

• Today, 49 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have right-to-carry laws. Thirty-six of those have "shall issue" permit laws (including Alaska and Arizona, which also allow carrying without a permit), two have fairly administered "discretionary issue" permit laws, and Vermont (along with Alaska and Arizona) allows carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.)

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other right-to-carry states that keep such statistics. Right-to-carry is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with right-to-carry laws. Since adopting right-to-carry in 1987, Florida`s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Texas` violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20 percent and 31 percent, respectively, since enactment of its 1996 right-to-carry law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "life" is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "security."

• The laws of all states and the constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person "may repel force by force" in self-defense, and is "entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force" as needed to prevent "great bodily injury or death." (Beard v. United States (1895))

• Congress affirmed the right to own guns for "protective purposes" in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners` Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as "a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms."

well what do all think???

reply to post by GrandpaDave


While I love it on the surface, at the same time it is giving more Federal Power.

If they can mandate a Federal Right to Carry, then they can also mandate a Federal BAN on carrying!!

I don't believe there should be a Federal Law one way or the other. The Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from infringing on our right to carry, so get rid of the Federal Gun laws for citizens, and let each state decide for themselves.

It's a shame, because I would love to support the bill, but if they can make that bill, then they can also make a bill saying the opposite. They just don't have the right either way. Vote Ron Paul.

That is beyond the purview of the federal government ...The states have the authority for reciprocity between themselves....Just another power grab !!!

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other right-to-carry states that keep such statistics. Right-to-carry is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

Correct statistic. ^^^^

Even more shocking is the fact that more than 75% of those revocations were issued to former law enforcement persons brandishing or using their firearm outside the rules of law.

Honest Civillians bear the brunt of the repercussions from their actions.
Gun laws are "broken and misdirected".

reply to post by GrandpaDave


Perhaps I missed it or perhaps it was intentionally left out to seemingly give the passage of this bill more teeth.

If you are interested in how relevant this bill is across the states, go to your state's website for CC licensing and check on the reciprocity agreement that your state has with other states. My understanding as of last year was that Texas for example has agreements with all states except Illinois and perhaps one other.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Ditto GetReady, my thoughts exactly. I live in Texas, and am about to get my CCL. And while it's great to be able to do so, it's also a bit bittersweet, as it is asking permission from the state to excercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (Redundant?) Will we next need a permit to speak freely, assemble, or worship as we please ? I say slippery slope.
Noro

reply to post by getreadyalready

Very good point. Here's a guy who really seems to understands the system.

That having been said, the states need to enact right to carry reciprocity. Its ridiculous how one can legally carry in one state and not in another. What if someone is forced to travel across states and would like to bring some protection?

As it stands now, we would be breaking the law to do it.

While I agree with the spirit of this legislation, I think the Federal government should be left out.
Allow the states to make agreements with each other.

If the people of New York/New Jersey etc don't want concealed carry laws, they shouldn't be forced to. In my opinion, they are making themselves both potential victims and are more servile to the state, but that's their business. I can choose not to enter those states if I don't like their laws.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by GrandpaDave

 

Perhaps I missed it or perhaps it was intentionally left out to seemingly give the passage of this bill more teeth.

If you are interested in how relevant this bill is across the states, go to your state's website for CC licensing and check on the reciprocity agreement that your state has with other states. My understanding as of last year was that Texas for example has agreements with all states except Illinois and perhaps one other.
I don't think any state as an agreement with Illinois. Kentucky as an agreement with 36 states, so planning a trip, don't drive through the states yours do not have that agreement with!!

reply to post by gladtobehere


Florida has reciprocity with about 30 states. This past year they cleaned up the language a lot so there is not so much difference from state to state. It used to be necessary to carry along a little handbook when traveling to see which states had slight nuances. Now it is almost standard from state to state.

For the record, I will be carrying, legal or not. I will just be much, much more careful in the locations that aren't exactly legal. I much prefer the places that are legal though!

okay... here's what I think...

if this law passes it will set a national standard for how CCW are given...
places like Calif... will no longer have the At the Sheriff's digression... card they can use to deny...
making one law that everyone can follow... regardless of where you live... just makes things simpler in my book

I for one hope this is passed. But if everyone is going to recognize each other's CCW, then the CCW classes and rules will have to be uniform.

As a Utahn, not a lot of states recognize our CCW. And I can see why. The requirements are sooooo minimal, practically anyone can teach a class. 3 hours without even being required to hold a weapon, and you're good. Even buying your gun is easy. Fill out the papers, wait for the background check to be quickly done in front of you, and walla - you walk out with a shiny new gun. That said... the crime rate in Utah is very very very low. The worst city would be considered the best in some crime riddled states.

But like others mentioned... what about the times you are required to drive across country? Yup... you have to call ahead. Some states just require you leave it locked in your car. Some states say you have 12 hours allowed in their state. Some... it's just not possible.

There was an article a couple years back that shows how this should definitely be fixed. This is the update on the story from this last January.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Missed flights only inconvenience most people. A late flight landed Utah gun owner Greg Revell in jail for 10 days after he got stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

The Supreme Court could decide* Tuesday whether to consider letting Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.

Lower courts have thrown out his lawsuit

Revell was flying from Salt Lake City to Allentown, Pa., on March 31, 2005, with connections in Minneapolis and Newark, N.J. He had checked his Utah-licensed gun and ammunition with his luggage in Salt Lake City and asked airport officials to deliver them both with his luggage in Allentown.

But the flight from Minneapolis to Newark was late, so Revell missed his connection to Allentown. The airline wanted to bus its passengers to Allentown, but Revell realized that his luggage had not made it onto the bus and got off. After finding his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark by mistake, Revell missed the bus. He collected his luggage, including his gun and ammunition, and decided to wait in a nearby hotel with his stuff until the next flight in the morning.

When Revell tried to check in for the morning flight, he again informed the airline officials about his gun and ammunition to have them checked through to Allentown. He was reported to the TSA, and then arrested by Port Authority police for having a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey license.

Meh, I have a natural right, as a human being to defend myself. So as long as ANY other person has a gun, I shall have the right to have one myself.

That is part of being a free person. As long as guns exist, I have a right to have one. I am not a subject.

No state or federal laws can infringe on that.

The only exception I can think of is perhaps a community where they choose to be gun free, including the government, are guns not necessary for safety. Though since weapons still exist outside that community, they leave themselves open to be oppressed or worse.

So yeah, no gun laws, period. Freedom requires responsibility, people can learn to handle it, again.

reply to post by GrandpaDave


Daddy, "more convenience" has been the reasoning behind all of our loss of rights. It will eventually be the reason people voluntarily decide to take the "mark." It is the reason people are voluntarily choosing to live as fat slaves rather than choosing freedom.

I agree with how convenient the law would be, and that is exactly why it is so dangerous. We voluntarily hand over the state's rights to the Federal Government, and then with each administration they chip away at those rights, and nobody is left to oppose it.

People hate the slippery slope arguments, but how many times have they proven true?

This Thread is not quite 1 year old, and we are already so much further along now than we were when I wrote it. Our rights are eroding at an exponential acceleration. Avoid the bills that come in sheep costumes!! Also, I do not trust the NRA whatsoever.

New Laws are never the answer. How about just repealing some laws? That would be a great start!!