Last week House Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced HR 822, a bill to provide for national reciprocity of concealed handgun licenses. The bill has bi-partisan support from co-sponsor Heath Shuler (D-NC).
The bill reads as follows:
The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!’s blog, “The Shooter’s Log,” is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!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
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on (blank)A BILL
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, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms‘‘
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying 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 purposes.
‘‘(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 preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’’.(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 circumstances 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.
This, unfortunately, will go over like a fart in church with the Dumorat-controlled Senate, not to mention all the big blue lib states such as Kalifornya and New Yoak….
Would love to see it get passed over the protests of Obummer!
Comment by MM stuck in L.A. — February 22, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kurt Mullins, Lew Rockwell and Rolling Thunder Pyro, Cheaper Than Dirt. Cheaper Than Dirt said: Contact your Representatives http://bit.ly/fJjrxo National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced in House http://fb.me/VJkkl2qS [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced in House « The Shooter's Log -- Topsy.com — February 22, 2011 @ 7:54 pm
The key is to get Congress-critters on record as voting against this, then use it against them. The intention is not to actually get it passed this year. Even if it passed the House and Senate, it wouldn’t get signed by Obama.
Even so, this is excellent progress.
Comment by WoodyTX — February 22, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
The Demcoratrically controlled Senate, is controlled by idiotic Moronms who have no real understanding ofg the laws other than to break them.
Those Democrats are basically, Mouth breathing, knuckle dragging thugs, who were beat up in school, and figured that by becoming a Senator, they could screw over an entire population, for the crap they suffered through in POuberty. The Second Amendment is OUR protection for tyrannicaql morons such as the Democrats in office. They have absolutely NO idea what Laqw’s are or what they serve. They break every Law known to Man. They push their own beliefs upon a People, no matter the consequence.
Democrats are the only people on Earth, who if they don’t like something, rather than just simplky not doing it, they say F.YOU to the Country and make their disbelief in a matter, ILLEGAL for those who DO believe in it.
We as a Nation, are sick and tired of these out of control RECTUMS! ( clean huh )
We are sick of their spend at will, do as we say not as we do. Sick of their defiance of what the U.S.Constitution and the Bill of Right says. WE have the right, as set forth by our Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago.
The [paper reads ” WE” WE THE PEOPLE ” NOT WE THE ALL MIGHTY IN OFFICE. IT ALSO SAYS ” BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DAMNED SPECIAL INTERESTS GTOUPS OR THE COMPANIES THAT ARE BRIBING THIS IDIOTS.
When I have to leave my LEGALLY OBTAINED, LEGALLY CARRIED WEAPON AT HOME WHEN I CROSS THE STATE LINES OF OTHER STATES, THAT VIOLATES U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. GET YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS HEADS OUT OF YOUR BUTTS AND WAKE UP.
Comment by Tom — February 22, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
WHARRGRBLLL democrats WHARRGRBLLL take our guns WHARGRBBLLL
Where has Obama ever said he wanted to take your guns? Anyone?
Comment by anon — February 22, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
Obama has never said he wanted to take our guns. I don’t foresee him doing so. I do see, however, our national average IQ going down, with rants like Tom’s. Either way call, email, or write your local senator, get your opinion out and lets hope that we can get this one passed.
Comment by Giggity — February 23, 2011 @ 1:08 am
“Where has Obama ever said he wanted to take your guns?” Are you kidding? How about on his own web site? He made it clear there that he would LOVE to ban commonly owned firearms. (semi-autos)
Comment by Edwin Mckinney — February 23, 2011 @ 1:57 am
I am absolutely appalled at the ignorance of some of you proud militia members. This ia a great bill and should be passed becuase it supports our rights as Americans. Tom- you are a truly amazing individual. I imagine its difficult to move through your home having to navigate the stockpiles of weapons, MREs, and secret passageways to your own basement. Ladies and gentleman the truth is that gun laws of any kind only apply to the law abiding citizen. Criminals certainly dont care what state they are in or what state they are travelling to. Wake up Tom. Wake up America!!! Stop punishing the citizen and start killing the criminals.
Comment by Soldier — February 23, 2011 @ 2:52 am
@Anon @Giggity
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
According to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test of July 2, 1998, Obama also supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapon sales and transfers. When most people hear “semi-automatic weapon”, they think of the gun in the hand of the gang banger. That may be true, but there are a lot of other guns that are semi-automatic, which would also be included in such bans. Shotguns, for example, that are used by bird hunters would fall under the ban. The only reason to try to ban a whole class of gun, with such a wide stroke, is to start the progression of banning all guns eventually.
In July of 2005, Obama voted “No” on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. This vote would have kept the gun makers from being sued for crimes committed by guns that they had made. Of course, once the gun leaves the factory, what control do the manufacturers have? The truth is, this is a part of Obama’s plan (along with most other national democrats) to put gun makers out of business. After all, if you can’t get the guns out of the citizens’ hands, then the next step is to get them at the manufacturing level! The logic of going after the gun manufacturers for gun crime could certainly set a dangerous precedent. What would be next? Going after car manufacturers if someone drives drunk and kills someone? Suing baseball bat manufacturers when gang bangers beat someone to death? The list of possibilities is endless. It is ridiculous to allow these manufacturers to be sued because of injury or death caused by the criminal misuse of their products.
Comment by Joep — February 23, 2011 @ 10:45 am
Democratic Party on Gun Control
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
Party Platform
Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole
We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 Jul 10, 2004
Strengthen gun control to reduce violence
Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000
@Giggity before you acuse others of having a low IQ, you should at least know what your are voting for?
Comment by Joep — February 23, 2011 @ 10:53 am
Typo, It should have been accuse.
Comment by Joep — February 23, 2011 @ 10:56 am
Isn’t the 2nd amendment everyone’s carry permit?
Comment by MagNOTClip — February 23, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
Why does everybody think banning assault weapons is necessary? Not to mention the term “assault weapon” is being misused and it is becoming very annoying. A true assault weapon is a hand held selective fire weapon. Basically A weapon capable of firing multiple rounds with one trigger pull. A machine gun for my liberal speaking readers that don’t know anything about guns other than they are bad and need to be banned. A civilian semi auto .223 rifle with a collapsible butt stock and pistol grip with a tactical fore grip is not an assault weapon.
Now you going to ask me, why do you need this? Then your going to try and tell me that those types of weapons are used by criminals to commit crimes. To answer the first quite simply – who needs a corvette with 500hp out of the box to get from point a to point b that is capable of speeds that are not legal anywhere on public roads in this country? Because its fun to drive. Some people like to modify them and show them off. (gun show reference anyone? following me?) Some people like to take their car to an auto cross track and see how it performs and how they stack up as a driver against others. (shooting sports reference? maybe) To the second statement, well, its just untrue. People get this in their head because when a shooting is being covered on the news, the reporters think that it looks great to have a pistol or “assault weapon” picture over their left shoulder.
Here is some numbers for you. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered “assault weapons.”) You want the full story with citied references go here -> http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
So all this hype with “assault weapons” needs to stop. I’m sick of hearing it, and the opposing argument is irrational and uneducated at best. Reinstating the ban will do nothing. By the way, real assault weapons and fully automatics (machine guns again for you liberals) have been banned since 1986. Thank you and good day.
Comment by Lance — March 1, 2011 @ 11:12 pm
I do supprot this Bill as do we all. We need to do it without name calling and ignornant postings. It does not help and supports the other side to say, this is why we need to keep guns away from “those” type of folks. It hurts the cause. This 2nd amendment right is important and we need to defend it professionally. Disclousure, I am an indenpendent and I do not hang my hat left or right. I do not blindly follow anyone, party or cause. I think, analyse then vote or support a cause that merit.
Comment by Rob — August 5, 2011 @ 7:10 am
Not trying to hijack this subject, but a valid sidebar (IMO) is to allow any CCW holder who has passed the Federal background check be allowed to receive firearms shipped directly to him, bypassing going through an FFL. Even if we have to sign a 4473 it would simplify things.
Comment by oatka — October 11, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
Überwiegend werden heute tropfenförmige oder durchlauf Silikon-Gel-Implantate verwendet, mit denen die Spezialisten die Brust unabhängig in Form erwirtschaften.
Comment by fettabsaugung — January 29, 2012 @ 12:23 pm
While this is noble in nature; it is unnecessary. In the Constitution, there already is such a standing rule.
Article IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Comment by Michael Bowen Jr — September 13, 2012 @ 12:03 pm