Nationwide concealed carry passes House Judiciary

Keep Congress out of CCW. It will ultimately be bad for gun owners and freedom.

So I'm guessing it will probably pass Congress. Any info on the odds of it passing the Senate? Also I doubt Obama would sign it unless it was attached to some other horrible bill he really wants passed (like National Park carry was attached to the credit card bill).

As much as I would like to be able to carry more freely, I don't like this law. As long as it is deemed legal for states to set restrictions on who may carry, it should be up to the states to set those restrictions. I may not agree with New York and New Jersey's firearms laws, but it's up to the citizens of those states to determine what's best for them. This is not a case where federal intervention will improve things.

I have to disagree with the nay-sayers here.

The right to bear arms is now incorporated via the 14th amendment. This doctrine came about rightly, because states at that time were infringing fundamental rights of Americans. Likewise, certain states continue to infringe the rights of Americans to bear arms. Joshua, it is not up to the states to determine whether they want to infringe rights. The protections afforded by the 2nd and 14th amendments take that policy of their table. In these cases, it is both necessary and constitutional for the federal government to protect the rights of those Americans from infringement by states. That is, after all, one of the roles of government.

This reciprocity bill will not ultimately be bad for gun owners, and I suspect all you might offer is arm-waving speculation to bolster the claim. It will serve to further protect rights of Americans from states who wish to regulate the right in an overly burdensome manner.

As an aside ... (and I am not accusing you guys of thinking this way) ... but it seems to me that there is an increasing sentiment out there that "all government is bad" or that "government can do no good, only harm." That is ludicrous on it's face, yet I suspect there is some of that sentiment growing in modern America among the small-government advocates. I am generally a small government advocate, but i don't fall into the thinking that government necessarily equals evil and oppression, or that "since big government is undesireable, small government is better, and no government is best." That kind of thinking is roundly wrong-headed.

Okay, Carl.

Give me ONE example where Congress got involved in the running of a state where things got BETTER.

They screw up everything they touch - without question.

As for the "right to keep and bear arms" being "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment, if it's a natural right, what's the CCW permit/license for in the first place?

If you really want Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters having a say so in the CCW permitting process, you're insane. No HR822.

Carl is right on target. I am also a small government person, and I believe that in general, government can do nothing well. But the constitution does provide that (1) bearing arms is a fundamental right, (2) this right must be respected by states, (3) congress may require states to respect each others licenses.

How long ago was it that some states refused to recognize marriage between black and white people? Should we allow states to refuse to honor drivers licenses issued by other states? Should we leave aspects of federal elections completely to the states?

This legislation does not vacate carry laws in the states. It just less people travel from state to state safely.

@Jim I think you're misreading the Constitution with "(3) congress may require states to respect each others licenses."

A state can license a particular activity within its jurisdiction. The license has no weight or effect in other jurisdictions.

The driver license is, thankfully, extended reciprocity throughout the 50 states and even internationally due to cooperation of the various jurisdictions, not by federal fiat.

Should a dentist be able to set up a temporary practice in a state other than the one in which he is licensed? Manicurist? Prostitute? Liquor Store? Casino?

The Constitution requires states honor each others' "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings." Such things happen once and are forevermore. Not so with the issuance of a license or permit. One state has no power to compel another state to permit certain activities within the other state's jurisdiction.

I do not support HR 822.

I live in New York City, own five handguns, and can't wait until New York is forced to issue carry licenses for anyone without a disqualification. So it's not like I'm anti-gun. The problem is that the law infringes on state sovereignty.

First, lets get something straight about driver licenses. The reason that a citizen can drive in other states is because every state...every single one...has passed a law recognizing driver licenses from not only other states but from foreign countries as well. THAT is why you can drive in other states. But when you do drive, it must be under the laws of that state. For example, a 15 yr-old from Montana with a valid driver license cannot drive in New Jersey, where you need to be 18 years old…the validity of the license notwithstanding.

HR 822 provides a clause allowing a state to limit the carrying of firearms to those who would meet the conditions or limitations as applied to residents of the state. So a person still needs to know the laws of every state to know if he qualifies in that state. That basically guts the peace of mind you're supposed to get when traveling from state to state. In my opinion, that renders the law useless right there.

But the other big problem is the clause that forces the state to treat out of state licenses as unrestricted licenses. That's where state sovereignty is violated. Basically, a state is forced to treat a license as unrestricted even if the person would not qualify for an unrestricted license. In short, the state is forced to enforce the laws of another state. That’s a huge problem.

Here’s a better version of the bill:

Congress, having found as follows:

1. ...the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is a fundamental right, as declared by the Supreme Court, and as such falls under the protection of the United States against infringement.

2. ...this legislative body has passed no law providing states with the power to restrict or regulate the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

...enacts as follows:

Title 18 of Chapter 44 is amended to add the following:

1. No state may restrict or regulate the possession or carrying of a firearm by any person who is otherwise not disqualified from doing so by the laws of the United States until such time as Congress passes legislation authorizing states to do so.

So do all you folks who oppose this law also support repealing the law that lets retired law enforcement officers carry nationally? Is there any justification for letting even current law enforcement officers carry outside their jurisdictions?

Wow.

The 14A says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

I'm kind of glad that the Federal government backed James Meredith's right to attend college with 42 USC 1983, the Federal Courts, and the US Army supporting the US Marshalls. Ending Southern Racism with the legitimate constitutional power of the federal government was good.

Undermining NY, NJ, MD, MA, and CA amongst other's blatant violations of civil rights is also a good and true use of federal power.

How dare the Federal Government require that no citizen or visitor is a lesser animal? I mean, how else can NYC keep up the Animal Farm?

Why are people who claim they're pro gun against letting lots of people carry on Madison Avenue?

-Gene

@Jim Yes, I believe the federal law enforcement carry statute is an abuse of federal power.

Are they more equal?

Sure there is justification for letting them carry outside their jurisdictions. It's called the right to keep and bear arms. The right is not just for pigs, but the horses and sheep too. (Hmm. No pun intended.)

@Gene This is the wrong way to go about enforcing the right to keep and bear arms in all the several States. It more deeply entrenches a permission scheme that flies in the face of a "right" to keep and bear arms.

Something like @Graystar proposed would be better, but his language implies the feds could revoke RKBA any time they please, which would be in conflict with the language of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is supposed to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Certain states make it impossible for me to bear these arms when I visit or drive through these states. The proposed bill only makes this constitutional right possible. My Constitutional right to carry in a hostile state shouldn't be be superseded by by that states ignorant driven whims.

"HR 822 provides a clause allowing a state to limit the carrying of firearms to those who would meet the conditions or limitations as applied to residents of the state."

I don't believe this. Show me (us).

The HR is directly within the perview of enumerated federal powers.

That said, I don't think the Senate will pass it (probably fillibustered by Progressives and friends) which means Reed won't allow it to come to a vote.

And then there's Obama.

You know the times they are a'changin when Democrats cite the 10th Amendment as a reason not to pass a federal law.

That said, I'm with those who prefer that the feds stay out of the gun control field (which this is, in a backhanded way.) Remember that the income tax was sold as something that would only tax the highest paid 1% at 5% (maybe it was the other way around, but in any case it was sold as a small tax that would only affect a few people), but once Congress had it in place look what they've done with it.

I would rather see things happen sooner than later, but there are already a lot of cases pending in the courts that will nationalize the standards that apply to keeping and bearing arms. Let's let those cases work their way through the process before we willingly ask Congress to regulate us on this subject.

How was HR822 amended in Committee? What does it say NOW.

To all y'all who shenanigans such as HR22 as being within within a fundamental understanding of Constitutional powers I only have this to say:

When you pervert the Constitution to provide power to achieve your agenda, no matter how noble, you have only yourselves to blame when your adversaries pervert the Constitution to provide power to achieve theirs, no matter how nefarious.

NJ lets 16 yr olds drive.....

I am a strong 10th Amendment supporter but this is not a 10th Amendment issue unless you do not support the application of the bill of rights to the States. That is certainly a defensible position but if you want to use it you must apply it to all of the Amendments. For examples States would be able to create a State religion, license newspapers, etc. unless their State Constitution prohibited it.

As seriously minarchist libertarian I could agree with you if this is the position you take.

If you do believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States then I don't see how you could have 10th Amendment concerns with it.

I do have some very serious concerns about this law however. I a NRA Training Counselor and I teach the personal protection classes. My concern is that there are so many non-obvious differences between the firearms laws of the various States and their political subdivisions that this could easily become a trap that will turn law abiding gun owners into felons.

I live and teach in NH, which has almost no restrictions where you can carry. I am concerned about NH residents going to MA or NYC, which would love to nail them for unintended violation of their senseless laws on carrying.

I still support this as another step towards a real restoration of our second Amendment rights but I recognize serious risks.

I fail to see how HR822 has anything to do with applying the bill of rights to the states.

If HR822 said, "WHEREAS The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, be it RESOLVED that no State shall require a license or permit to keep and carry arms openly or concealed from view and all such laws are null and void and without force," I would say that Congress was attempting to apply the bill of rights to the states.

HR822 is anything but.

The one concern i have is that this law does say you have to obey the concealed carry laws of the other state, which is a miss match of regulations. Which gives the Feds a reason to create a national regulation of concealed carry laws, which could be more restrictive.

ps - why is g mail blocked?

@NO THANKS: So let me understand you... Your position is that the Constitution HAS NOT ALREADY been perverted to expand federal bower beyond its intended limits?

If we were talking about killing this bill and also, at the same time, every other abuse of federal power, then I would be right there with you. But the federal government regulates firearms in almost every way. If we're going to have those regulations, then this one fits right in.

And this bill is an enforcement of the 2nd Amendment. Do you oppose the federal law prohibiting poll taxes?