This is something you don't want. What the Feds giveth, the Feds taketh away.
This is a discussion on Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This is ROUND ONE. It still faces the Senate. Showdown looming on national concealed carry Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is ...
This is ROUND ONE.
It still faces the Senate.
Showdown looming on national concealed carry
Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation that would require all states to honor the concealed carry licenses or permits issued by other states, and the bill – H.R. 822 – is taking fire from certain corners on both sides.
Showdown looming on national concealed carry - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
This is something you don't want. What the Feds giveth, the Feds taketh away.
senate and prez won't let this happen
Noooooo, it should stay governed by state and hopefully does.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Im hoping for this. Dont see any other way MD will get to carry
This won't affect the current MD process of concealed carry issuing, it will only allow OTHER state residents to carry in your state. So you won't be able to carry but I will..... Ironic huh?
Would be better if they were removing laws governing carry, not adding another FEDERAL law.
Some guys would complain about about being in the playboy mansion with a pile of playmates trying to convince him that they are the dirtiest of them all because someone served the wrong brand of beer.
And you people are complaining because you don't like Congress doing it via the interstate commerce clause?
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official TextNRA-ILA :: The TRUTH About H.R. 822<br>The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011"112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 822
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed
firearms in the State.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 18, 2011
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national
standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a
State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States protects the fundamental right
of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for
purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States
has recognized this right in the case of District of
Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v.
City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to
carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.
SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, UnitedStates Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain con7
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the car10
rying or transportation of firearms, a person 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 person to carry a concealed firearm, may 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 pur26
‘‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
‘‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to pre-empt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed fire
(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) SEVERABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or cir2
cumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
NRA-ILA :: The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
NRA-ILA :: H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act -- Heading to House Floor; Contact your Representative Now!
Glock Certified Armorer
If this is such a great thing for the support of the second amendment, why do they have to specify "concealed" carry? Why not just leave it as carry? Did the second amendment specify concealed is the only way to carry if you want to enjoy the right?
I'm not against it, just questioning whether this is the way we want it worded.
Bottom line is this:and...The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states.District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
Referring to:So bottom line is as unfortunate as it is, SCOTUS final word on concealed carry is that it is NOT covered under the USCON so the feds need to STAY OUT OF STATE BUSINESSRobertson v. Baldwin 1897
the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
Edit:Unfortunately, and I do think that this is one of those times that SCOTUS really blew it, the only entity that has any possibility of overriding this position is the congress.So bottom line is as unfortunate as it is, SCOTUS final word on concealed carry is that it is NOT covered under the USCON so the feds need to STAY OUT OF STATE BUSINESS