HR 822 vote yesterday. What does it mean for us?

B

Blade37db

New member
NRA message sounds positive, but it doesn't say what it means or where it leaves us at this point. Anyone know what's next?

U.S. House Passes NRA-backed

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation



The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.
 
Next is the Senate, which hasn't been working on a companion bill so far as I know. It is expected to be a tougher fight, as unfortunately Schumer, Feinstein, and Lautenberg are influential there.
 
IMO, on an immediate, practical level it's not likely to mean much.

It has very little chance of becoming law.

However, it does help educate the general public that, regardless of what characterization McCarthy, et. al. want to put on it, second-amendment rights are not just a "fringe" or "radical" issue.

I think the process is good for us regardless of how the actual bill fares.

It's a win-win for 2nd amendment fans, I think.
 
which hasn't been working on a companion bill so far as I know
Click to expand...

Companion bills simply speed the process along slightly by getting language 'approved' in both houses.

It still has to go to a house-senate resolution committee to make the versions agree.

Any change to the now passed house bill the senate makes put it back into the house for another go-round.

It is very likely to die in the senate, and Obongo will never sign it if it does pass both houses.
 
Yellow Fin you forgot to mention the greatest impediment to any Senate action, harry reid. (lower Case deliberate)

I hope my position is wrong, but I bet that this bill will never see the light of day in the Senate.

If it does get a vote and does pass, Obama will veto it in order to get his voting base back.
 
Even if it passes the Senate, there is a final signature required......

Anyone care to place a bet on that happening......
 
Reid is typically reluctantly (due to his partyline) pro 2nd to a degree. But political manuevering and trading favors and votes will marginalize his power (pick your battles wisely as it were).

Senate judiciary committee. Hmmmmm. Has to come out of there doesn't it? That committee is headed by whom again? (Leahy) What's on their agenda this week? (go ahead, take a peek)

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

Subcommittee on Crime & Terrorism talking about "The Fix Gunchecks Act, Better State and Federal Compliance, Smarter Enforcement" uh... F&F... national CCW? yeah. right.
 
Subcommittee on Crime & Terrorism talking about "The Fix Gunchecks Act, Better State and Federal Compliance, Smarter Enforcement"
Click to expand...
...and, if you look at HR 2112, you'll see enhanced protections for firearms commerce and licensing slipped in to the budget. There are good things being done very well under the radar, while bad things are failing on the lighted stage.

I really doubt HR 822 has much of a chance in the Senate, but I also think it's not really meant to pass. My guess is that it's more of a chance to take a roll call of who's on board with the 2nd Amendment and who's not.
 
^ +1

I think it's interesting that in the press it's said that the administration has yet to officially weigh in on this issue.

Given what we know of Fast and Furious, it's obvious that the administration is chock full of politicians and appointees who are staunch gun control advocates and activists. A lot of people including Eric Holder who beleive that shutting down firearms manufacturers and dealers and restricting sales of firearms strickly to police and military would make America a peaceful utopia.

But they haven't weighed in officially.... OK.


This bill has also done a great job of disheartening the Brady Campaign :)
 
While I very much doubt it will get through the Senate, even if it does I just can't see President Obama signing it. While he's tried fairly hard not to seem overtly anti-gun (since that's a losing position on the national political stage), anyone paying more than casual attention can see that the President is no friend of the Second Amendment. The key, it seems, to getting Obama to go along with any pro-gun legislation seems to be attaching it to something else that he wants very badly. Case in point, we were able to get carry in national parks by attaching it to a credit card reform bill that the administration wanted badly.

As far as Harry Reid goes, I think this is an issue he'd probably rather not touch at all. Reid has always walked a fine line on gun control since it's a losing issue in his home state, yet his party isn't particularly friendly to 2A. I suspect that Reid would probably like this particular bill to die in commitee that way he doesn't have to be involved one way or the other.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I like the idea behind this bill in the first place. The Federal Government, it seems, is much like the camel with its nose in the tent: once they get a foothold in something their involvement and control of it only increases. Given some of the "interesting characters" in Washington like Feinstein, Schumer, and McCarthy, I'm not really sure that's a camel we want in our tent.
 
Its a fine idea, equal treatment under the law. All states recognize each other's drivers licenses, and for that matter, marriage licenses. They should all recognize all of each other's licenses.

However, on a practical note, this will not get through the current Senate.
 
All states recognize each other's drivers licenses, and for that matter, marriage licenses. They should all recognize all of each other's licenses.
Click to expand...

By agreements between the states, and they recognize marriages, not marriage licenses.

The license is often valid ONLY in the issuing state to allow a marriage to be performed.

It is NOT the same as the marriage itself.

The most common path is that the officiant at the marriage ceremony signs the license (sometimes with a witness to the actual ceremony) and it is then returned to the court.
A certificate of marriage is than issued, declaring the parties to be married.

This is recognized among states.
 
Hypothetically if it were signed into law, how would it effect people who hold out of state permits(from a state they are not a resident in) that live in highly restrictive states?(Places that are may issue, but by practice are essentially shall not issue, example, many parts of CA)

If the new law does not have provisions for the permit needing to come from ones state of residence, do you all think the more restrictive states would change their policies, as they would have effectively lost control of who can and cannot carry?
 
sigcurious, that's a good question. From my reading of the text of the bill, it would have no effect:

"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"

As I read it, a person may obtain a concealed weapons permit from any state and, under the terms of this bill, be able to use it in any state other than his state of residence. The bill does not require the permit holder's state to recognize his out of state permit.

It seems perverse, but it is sort of a crumb thrown to the states' rights folks. If you live in a "may issue" state, you can't make an end run around the state law by getting an out of state permit.
 
brickeyee said:
By agreements between the states, and they recognize marriages, not marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

This.

And IMHO that is how it should be for CCW as well. I think it makes the reciprocity stronger and harder for the Fed to undo. Also, I "try" to be consistent politically. I favor states rights and that is for everything not just the stuff I want. Antigunners, most of whom are liberal and don't like states rights suddenly on this issue find it appealing. I find them disingenous.

Let the states work it out between themselves. I think that is better and like some other posters have said, this thing has a snowballs chance of passage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top