For whatever reason, the link you provided did not work.
Maybe this will work better.
Link Removed
Ok, so the Status is that it has been introduced in the Senate and sent to the subcommittee on the Judiciary. Unless someone in the subcommittee on the Judiciary is gung-ho for this bill to pass.. it may simply die there.
- `(2) an individual 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 is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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 individual that--
- `(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
- `(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
Straighten me out.....doesn't this say a person who lives in VT can't carry in VT?
Straighten me out.....doesn't this say a person who lives in VT can't carry in VT?
What I read is that if you have a permit from your State of residence it is good in any other State that issues permits. A non-resident permit is not valid in your State of residence. So, for example, you can't get a permit from Utah then go back to CA and thumb your nose at your politicians. This bill protects out of State visitors from local politicians. The only protection you have from your politicians is to vote them out of office.
No, You need to look at what it is saying before the section that you highlighted. What it is saying is that if your State allows its residents to apply for and obtain a Concealed Carry Permit (CCP), then Your State has to also accept the VALID CCP's issued by other States. Just as if you hold a CCP issued by your state, you will be able to carry into any other state that also issues CCP's to their residents.
The verbiage gets a bit confusing with how they throw the NOT's and IS's into it.
But please follow along.. an individual 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 is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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 individual that--
[h=4]`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms[/h]
- `(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--
`(1) an individual 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 individual 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 individual that--
- `(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
- `(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and
- `(2) an individual 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 is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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 individual that--
- `(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
- `(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
So if I understand this correctly it appears that they are trying to control if 882 passess, that we follow the States rules for carry regardless of how unconstitutional or ridiculous they are (think Illinois, California restrictions for magazine rounds, one in the chamber, etc.)
And you are not reading the "Not"! Let me try to break it down. Please try to get through all the legalese by ignoring what is simply filler that confuses the issues. I will highlight the pertinant stuff.Permits are covered in paragraph (1) that I didn't paste. Paragraph (2) covers those folks from state that don't require permits. But BOTH paragraphs say "in a state other than the State of residence of the individual"... States don’t have rights. People do.
States have rights?
believe this for a very simple, but important reason: States don’t have rights. People do.
Most states’ rights supporters invoke the 10th Amendment to legitimate and concretize their beliefs. However, the 10th Amendment has very specific wording:
“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.”
The 10th Amendment nowhere provides for any rights of the states. Rather, it delegates powers, the ability to do things, to the states. And there are two conditions on the delegation of any powers to the state: that they are not articulated in the Constitution to the federal government and that they are not reserved by the people themselves. What’s more, the 10th Amendment comes after the 9th Amendment, which also has very specific, and noticeably distinct wording:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So not only are the powers of the states qualified by the authority of the people, but the Constitution explicitly says that the rights of the people shall not be denied, even if not enumerated in the Constitution. With the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment (that all rights protected by the federal Constitution may not be infringed upon by the states), this means there is a Constitutional guarantee that individual rights will not be denied by any government, state or federal, within the United States.
States do not have a carte blanche right to enact any law they want, even if done democratically. Their decisions are not irrevocable or immune from oversight. The use of state power is limited by the rights of the individuals within the state. If states violate the rights of those individuals, then there is just cause for intervention whether by the people or the federal government
I do understand that you take the position that States only have power granted by the People and for all intents and purposes you would be correct. U.S. Constitution - Table of Contents - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
~~ clipped for brevity~~ H.R.822 passed ~~ Now we not only have the original H.R.822 in committee ~~.
H.R.822
Latest Title: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] (introduced 2/18/2011) Cosponsors (245)
Related Bills:H.RES.463, H.R.3543, S.2188, S.2213
Latest Major Action: 11/17/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Reports: 112-277
If it were a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res.) your statement would be close to the truth. As it is not, what you are seeing is simply a means of tracking to keep it from being lost, so do not let yourself get confused by it.H.R.822 now resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee
H.R.822 now resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee