New member
I'm hoping to stir up a bit of discussion on this bill that will (if passed) allow anyone with a carry permit in their state to carry in all states. Naturally it's Federal and that's the rub. I was all for it until I got an email from (I forgot who) someone claiming to be affiliated with the NRA. His claim is that if the Fed's get this passed, they can then add any stipulations they like to this bill making it harder for permit holders to carry. They could restrict the type of ammo you use, the caliber of gun, places you can not carry (like there aren't enough of these already) or anything else they can think of.

What do y'all think?

Letting the anti gun fed get involved will produce a mess, if the fed wants to do something let them kill the gun free school zones first.
2 issues

1) I believe the some 'may issue' states will change to 'no issue' states. I can not believe New York or New Jersey would ever allow permits from other states to be valid. I admit that this could force their hand and actually result in them becoming more free, but I doubt it. I believe that it will end up costing those states what limited right they do have.

2) In short term it would be a good thing, but once the Federal government gets involved they will only expand their involvement. They have never passed a law that was not amended in the following years. When Washington's involvement grows, citizens rights are lessoned.

What we need to do is putting pressure on our state governments to start recognizing other permits straight up like Indiana does. There is no reason that a state should, without federal involvement, recognize other permits or licenses that meet similar criteria for issuance.
I dont like this bill because I do NOT care if I cant carry in other states that dont honor my permit like Illinois and New York because guess what? I wont go to those states anyway. The feds dont need to keep involving themselves in every aspect of our lives.
The fed should stick to protecting or boarders and to the US Constitution. Let the States deal with States rights issues. More fed involvment will lead to less freedom.
I have some serious problems with this bill, and I don't think it should be passed. I believe this bill just reasserts the notion that one has to be licensed in order to carry concealed. If you have the Right to Bear Arms, then why is a licensed required to begin with? I believe this will allow the Federal Government the ability regulate firearms more on the local level. I hate to say this, and I know I will get negative responses from this, but I also believe that this may be driven by the NRA to generate revenue and an increase their political base.

How will other states know that you are able to carry from another state? What are the costs associated with this? What information will be put into the databases (such as NCIC)?

If states have to recognize other states concealed licenses, how will the revoking process work in another state?

Will brandishing, menacing and other state laws be redefined when it comes to the passing of this law?

What will the training standards be?

I'm covered under H.R. 218, and I made the prediction when it was first passed that additional amendments to the law would be passed because police administrators and politicians not understanding the law. Sure enough, there has been additional amendments passed because no one understood the fundamental principals of the H.R. 218. For instance, an amendment had to be passed for civilian police on military bases and Amtrak police because they weren't considered real police in lots of eyes. Not only that, but there were several wrongful arrests, and police administrators trying to circumvent the laws, for instance not allowing police to take their credentials home.

Lastly, wasn't there a federal law passed for an opt-in national carry standard? I could swear there was one. If anyone can find it, I would appreciate it.
Here is what the NRA has to say about HR-822. It's rather lengthy but if all they say is true, it sounds like a good bill.

The Truth About H.R. 822, the “National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act”

Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked by anti-gun organizations and media and, regrettably, even some so-called "pro-gun" organizations have joined with the anti-gun Brady Campaign and Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns to try to defeat this important pro-gun bill.

This critically important bill, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)

H.R. 822 would mark a major step forward for gun owners' rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized. Dozens of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries.

Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on each "states' rights." But states don't have rights, only powers. And while many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" to oppose this bill, several provisions of the Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the 14th Amendment (please see related article from last week's Grassroots Alert).

Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing or registration system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the FACTS about a few of their claims:

Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require—or even authorize—any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.

Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.

TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.

H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. Don't listen to false and misleading accusations. Read the bill yourself and read our fact sheet to get the facts. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year.

Your member of Congress, Dennis Ross, is a cosponsor of this critical pro-gun bill and was instrumental in beating back anti-gun amendments that were proposed during its consideration in the House Judiciary committee.

Please contact Representative Dennis Ross at (202) 225-1252 or by email by clicking here at Link Removed and thank him for standing up for gun owners’ rights by cosponsoring this bill and for his steadfast support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member