First of all, thank you, Al Norris, for some very astute and well-informed analysis. I am a lawyer, but I honestly don't think I could have put together a better analysis. Well done, Al.
youngunz4life -- I've seen the word "naive" pop up in your posts several times since I used it. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. I don't think that everyone who supports this bill, nor even that you, specifically, are naive. I apologize if I've offended you. What I think is naive is the belief that the federal government could not, and will not, ever tack national CCW standards onto this bill. I think it would be equally naive to think that a future, anti-gun majority in Congress would not do things like mandating the creation of a national CCL database, or dream up other measures that will have the effect of reducing our 2A rights. Are those limitations in the bill right now? No. Do I think that, if this passes, some representative in the near future will start trying to get them put in? Absolutely.
The federal government does have its place, but this isn't it. The possible benefits are too speculative and too small to support the risk. I would get little or no benefit from the passage of HR 822. According to handgunlaw.us and the Arkansas State Police website, my permit is already recognized through reciprocity in 38 States. With one or two exceptions, I have no current plans to travel to any of the other 12. This bill could help some gun owners in the more restrictive states. On the other hand, it could also hurt them, in that a restrictive state could simply ban CC altogether, exempting itself from the operation of HR 822. Even if it does work out to help citizens in the restrictive states, the bill invites the feds to meddle in areas that are traditionally handled at the State level, IMHO. I also still maintain that something akin to the Driver's License Compact would be a good way to go. That would handle the matter at the state level. If changes need to be made to the standards for issuing CHCLs in my state, then they'll be made by someone to whom my vote counts. Given that my state has reciprocity with 38 others, I don't think it'd be that hard to get the American Bar Association to put something together. (I think that's who drafts the model codes, anyway.)
As for NRA support, well, . . . the NRA is a single-issue organization. I am not a single-issue voter. In addition to the fact that this is a firearms issue, I also see it as an unwarranted expansion of federal power, which bothers me. That, however, is a totally different discussion. While I often agree with the NRA's position, I do not in this case.
When I was in law school and taking Con Law, I don't even remember talking about the 2A. I suspect the lecture went something like this: "The Second Amendment. It's about guns. Now, on to the Third . . . " From my perspective, the 2A has been absolutely on fire at SCOTUS the last few years, and it's been pretty exciting. We (as gun owners) have come too far and seen too much accomplished to let this bill pass, which could moot out some of the 2A cases. At the risk of sounding trite, a decision from SCOTUS that says "carry outside the home is a fundamental, individual right" would absolutely rock the anti-gun strongholds at their very foundations. If we get a decision like that, lots of the restrictive regulations out there will be overturned.
.