H.r. 822

[njsportsman]

Sorry if this is a repeat but, I search for H.R. 822 in the search and got nothing. Can't imagine nothing on this subject but here it goes. So basically what does H.R.822 do for a guy like me? I live in New Jersey and have a Florida CCW will this law allow me to carry in NJ? I don't have much faith in our Senate to pass it but curious just the same. Thanks

 

[CharonPDX]

Yes, there are multiple threads about it already.

In short, according to my (not-a-lawyer) reading of the bill, as passed by the House (it still needs to go through the Senate, then conference committee - and it could change by then,) the summary is as follows:

Every state that issues concealed carry permits must honor every other state's concealed carry permit as if it was their own. Whatever is legal in a given state to its own concealed permit holders is legal to holders of concealed permits from other states. The one exception is in your own state of residence. Sorry.

So, in short, it would all of a sudden become easy for non-Hawaiians to carry concealed in Hawaii. But Hawaiians would still have a near-impossible time (same with NYC, San Francisco, etc.)

It does not change the ability of a state to regulate its own residents - only that it must treat concealed-licensed residents of OTHER states the same as it treats its own concealed-licensed residents. The fact that residents of other states can get a concealed-carry license much more easily than its own residents doesn't come in to play.

One potential side-effect: Some states that are technically "may issue" but logistically "non-issue" (such as Hawaii,) could very well decide to stop issuing concealed carry permits altogether, a la Illinois. Then NOBODY could carry concealed there (again, a la Illinois.) Although since those states are already effectively "non-concealed carry" already, it wouldn't be much of a change.

 

[longslide10]

You must not have searched too hard. There are hundreds of links but this one should tell ya

Link Removed

 

[Caribou]

Actually I believe tat the only State you would not be allowed to carry in would be IL. Still, it has not passed the Senate so write your Senators.

 

[CharonPDX]

njsportsman specifically asks about his legality to carry in NJ, *NOT* having an NJ license, but having an out-of-state license. Under HR 822 (again, by my not-a-lawyer reading,) he still would not be allowed to carry in NJ. He would be allowed to carry in every state other than IL (which bans concealed carry for ANYONE) or NJ (his home state - which HR 822 says states may still ban their own residents from carrying without their OWN state's permit.)

 

[BC1]

The language of 822 may cause states that have restrictive laws to stop concealed carry altogether. I could see states such as MD, MA, NY, IL, etc. removing all carry rather than open up to everyone. The will of these states cannot be dictated by federal legislation.

 

[FN1910]

The only state that I possibly see removing their CCW permits would be HI as from what I understand has only issued about 10 since they were made available. However I do think that some state may change the restrictions on places to carry along with other restrictions making it very difficult to carry either CC or OC without breaking some law.

 

[longslide10]

njsportsman specifically asks about his legality to carry in NJ, *NOT* having an NJ license, but having an out-of-state license. Under HR 822 (again, by my not-a-lawyer reading,) he still would not be allowed to carry in NJ. He would be allowed to carry in every state other than IL (which bans concealed carry for ANYONE) or NJ (his home state - which HR 822 says states may still ban their own residents from carrying without their OWN state's permit.)

I would have to agree

 

[ricardo900]

If any state attempting to ban conceal carry amongst their residents, must present a bill to their state legislature and vote on it. Even in states like NY, NJ, CA & MD there are suburban/rural areas that are saturated with VOTING gun owners. It won't be that easy. Now, NYC is a beast of it's own because they "generally" issue Business Carry & Guard Carry. They "technically" don't issue concealed carry permits, so I won't be surprised if NYC will challenge it in federal court.

Long time ago, NYC used to issue "Target" permits, but were pissed when they found out permit holders were "carrying" their firearms to the gun range, so they changed it to a "premise only" permit, allowing a police granted (not law/statute granted) special circumstance transportation of a firearm to an "authorized" nyc gun range, in a locked case, ammo seperate.

IMO, I don't see myself packing in time square anytime soon or ever

 

[Wyldekard]

The GOA isn't overly thrilled with H.R. 822. They would rather see H.R. 2900 become law. This is what they have to say about it:

The conceal carry reciprocity bill that passed the House is
well-intentioned but flawed legislation. As written, the bill:

* Forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either
obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more
restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;

* Requires permits for reciprocity, thus undermining efforts at the state
level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);

* Is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution's
Commerce Clause, and;

* Allows for non-residents to carry firearms in restrictive "may issue"
states, while most residents of such states would be prohibited.

Furthermore, during floor consideration of the bill, a troubling amendment
was added to instruct the Government Accounting Office to:

"Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement
authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other
States, to carry a concealed firearm."

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the
federal government to "study" the exercising of a right. Even worse, you
can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study,
to push for some type of national carry license.

Congressman Paul Broun's legislation (H.R. 2900) contains none of these
flaws and is the bill that should have come to the floor. Please show
your support for this legislation by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.

 

[jg1967]

njsportsman specifically asks about his legality to carry in NJ, *NOT* having an NJ license, but having an out-of-state license. Under HR 822 (again, by my not-a-lawyer reading,) he still would not be allowed to carry in NJ. He would be allowed to carry in every state other than IL (which bans concealed carry for ANYONE) or NJ (his home state - which HR 822 says states may still ban their own residents from carrying without their OWN state's permit.)

Correct, that is an interesting sidenote on this. This proposal does NOT try to change individual State's CCW laws (hence IL can continue to ban it altogether) and does NOT try to circumvent local CCW requirements (hence a state can require their own permit to be obtained).

 

[njsportsman]

You must not have searched too hard. There are hundreds of links but this one should tell ya

Link Removed

I admit I am computer challenged but, no I don't mean I couldn't find anything on Google. I meant I tried on this forums search engine and found nothing I put HR 822 and it came back with nothing. Sometimes you need the exact title I guess.

 

[mrjam2jab]

The GOA isn't overly thrilled with H.R. 822. They would rather see H.R. 2900 become law. This is what they have to say about it:

The conceal carry reciprocity bill that passed the House is
well-intentioned but flawed legislation. As written, the bill:

* Forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either
obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more
restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;

No different than it is now; no it doesn't.

* Requires permits for reciprocity, thus undermining efforts at the state
level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);

Doesn't undermine anything. Most states switching to Con Carry are leaving optional permits for reciprocity anyway.

* Is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution's
Commerce Clause, and;

* Allows for non-residents to carry firearms in restrictive "may issue"
states, while most residents of such states would be prohibited.

Will force those May Issue states to change to shall issue....or eliminate altogether.

Furthermore, during floor consideration of the bill, a troubling amendment
was added to instruct the Government Accounting Office to:

"Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement
authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other
States, to carry a concealed firearm."

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the
federal government to "study" the exercising of a right. Even worse, you
can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study,
to push for some type of national carry license.

Congressman Paul Broun's legislation (H.R. 2900) contains none of these
flaws and is the bill that should have come to the floor. Please show
your support for this legislation by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.

My thoughts in red

 

[WAJ]

It will allow you to carry in any state that issiues CCW, providing you have a CCW from your state of origin, which is every state except Illinois!HR 822 Concealed Carry Gun Bill Passes House Vote

 

[Hamilton Felix]

I really, really want to see this pass. It would make my occasional road trip simpler and safer. I'm not holding my breath, though. Remember, the average congresscritter is very ANTI-freedom.

 

[FN1910]

My thoughts in red

I have read many of the pleas from different groups such as the one from the GOA to abandon H.822 for H.2900 and in almost every case they are nothing more than sensationalism trying to get you to send them money to supposedly fight the change. As you have well pointed out they are full of distortions and sometime outright lies. An example is the "Major problem for Vermont" where H.822 doesn't make a single change for the residents of Vermont. The one thing that these "newsletters" have done is to convince me that I don't want any part of a group that will use that kind of misinformation to "swindle" people out of their money.

 

[mrjam2jab]

It will allow you to carry in any state that issiues CCW, providing you have a CCW from your state of origin, which is every state except Illinois!HR 822 Concealed Carry Gun Bill Passes House Vote

Does not have to be a home state permit. The home state permit is only required for your home state. A non-resident permit would be good in every other state.

 

[longslide10]

I admit I am computer challenged but, no I don't mean I couldn't find anything on Google. I meant I tried on this forums search engine and found nothing I put HR 822 and it came back with nothing. Sometimes you need the exact title I guess.

Oh I C. I thought you were doing a web search. Sorry Bud

 

[Wyldekard]

My thoughts in red

Mrjam2jab have you actually seen the legsilation?? So in answer to your thoughts yes it does. The first thing it says in section 926D (which is what they want to ammend by addition of) is you have to have a permit. At this time, the people of Vermont don't have a state law requiring them to have a CCW permit. This particular change to the Federal law will require a permit that they don't have if they want to carry in a state other than Vermont.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(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 (except as provided in subsection (b)), 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.
`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
`(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.
(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) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Maybe you should bookmark this site: Link Removed

As for your other contentions/thoughts in red and considering your error with your first one, please backup your expertise of all the current individual state politics with researchable sources especially those specifically pertaining to may issue states will be forced to change to shall issue or cease to issue. Facts please. News flash, you're wrong about Iowa.

 

[BluesStringer]

As you have well pointed out they are full of distortions and sometime outright lies. An example is the "Major problem for Vermont" where H.822 doesn't make a single change for the residents of Vermont.

I think you misunderstand the "major problem for Vermont" that GOA attempts to highlight. You're right, 822 doesn't "force" Vermont to change its current law, which in actuality, is no law at all. What GOA is saying is that if Vermont's citizens want to be able to enjoy the same rules concerning carrying out of state as they enjoy in state, then they will be "forced" by 822 to institute a law where none exists now. Otherwise, the most adherent to the Constitution state in the Union would reap the least benefits from passage of 822.

The one thing that these "newsletters" have done is to convince me that I don't want any part of a group that will use that kind of misinformation to "swindle" people out of their money.

Well, if you're already convinced, perhaps I'm wasting my time, but I think that "misinformation" is a vast overstatement of what GOA's alert(s) (there have been many, but only one has made it onto this board that I've seen) have sought to convey. Perhaps it could have been worded better, but when the posted alert was written, it was after a long line of previous alerts in which their email list membership was educated fully on the issue of the "major problem for Vermont." They probably weren't expecting the email alert to end up as the totality of their "ink" on the issue on forums etc.

Speaking of their email list, I've been on it for several years, at least 5, I think more, but I have never paid a dime for it, nor have I ever sent them money independent of their email requests. I don't mind spending money for a good cause, but I feel my limited resources are better spent in travel and hotel expenses when I go to rallies and/or protests that draw attention to the same issues that they are fighting for through their lobbying efforts.

Bottom line, I really don't think there are any lies or mistakes in the alert to which you referred. Incomplete and/or bad wording, perhaps, but no lies.

Blues