HB 822 passes the House

What a shame they leave out how many of their former and current members are convicted felons.

That thing coming under the tent is the camel's nose.

I've read several places recently (maybe the same post on different forums) the proposition that most "pro-gun" legislation at the federal level is nothing but eyewash designed to give incumbents the most campaign fodder ("I voted to expand your gun rights . . . ") while giving up the least amount of gun control (" . . . but the evil Democrats/gun controllers/President kept it from becoming law.")

This also gives pro-gun legislators a perpetual campaign plank ("send me back and I'll work for more . . . ") much as Democrats have promised to fix "the poor" if they will but return them to Congress. The last thing a career Congresscritter wants is to solve a problem that he has campaigned to solve, as it would require finding a new problem to solve before the next election AND convincing the electorate both that the new problem is serious and that he/she is just the (only) person who can solve it.

Kicking the can down the road also keeps the pro-gun lobbyists in business ("send another contribution so we can continue to work for your gun rights.") I know, I'm getting cynical in my old age, but this just makes so much sense that I have a hard time dismissing it.

I can't imagine the Democrat-controlled Senate approving this bill (unless there is an agreement in place for Obama to veto it, which would allow Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2012 to also use the "I voted for it . . ." line.) So on the whole, it strikes me as much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The only states it affects adversely are HI, CA, IL and NY.

I'd love to see a 92-8 passage, but in reality I doubt there will be a veto-proof majority.

@Wranglers, we'll see. I am not nearly so cynical. Instead I am cautiously optimistic. Harry Reid and I agree on exactly one thing, gun rights. Let's see what he can do with this. I am betting (not a big bet - but a bet) he will get it through in such a way it has to pass and be signed.

Jim,

I think it may be more accurate to say it adversely affects CA, HI, MD, NY, NJ, RI and a few states that let their own citizens carry but not others (like WA) or make it excessively difficult for non-citizens (like MA).

IL is not affected at all since they have no concealed carry of any kind.

I am curious as to how many of you think this is constitutional? Ie is this a valid use of the commerce clause? I am as pro gun as anyone but I am concerned that this is an over step--what say you?

@David McCleary - it can be argued that it's Constitutional under the "full faith and credit" clause or under the 14th Amendment. It can also be argued that it is unnecessary because the 2nd and 14th Amendments already protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, but the courts haven't been willing to admit that the right includes carrying outside of one's home yet.

Oregon as well; as I understand it they have a good concealed carry law except absolutely no external reciprocity. States like my native Missouri which respect any state's license will experience absolutely no change whatsoever, which of course didn't stop all three of our Democratic reps from voting against it (all inner city types). The party still owns gun control....

wrangler5: It did at least two good things: it smoked out a couple of Republicans with good NRA ratings as phonies and presumably in 2013 a Republican Senate will pass it. If it gets dropped after this year, we'll know to hold the party or at least its leadership accountable. I for one wouldn't be sure Boehner's position is unassailable.

Oregon offers reciprocity to residents of their bordering states, WA, ID, NV, and CA (unfortunately not their "sea border" with us in AK though) though you have to apply with the Sheriff which usually means going into Oregon.

There is one guy who apparently regularly comes into Cali to take applications.

Oregon is on the edge of going full reciprocity anyway and WA has a "check the psycho list" requirement that is the only thing that keeps them from being a pretty much universal acceptor so this won't really put them out too greatly.

Hawaii is the only state in the West I could see reacting negatively, perhaps by trying to rescind its carry law since, AFAIK, it doesn't issue permits at all, even to political cronys. They might piss off their outnumbered pro-gun groups but there's no local group of actual permit holders to be aggrieved.

Well, I hope I AM being too cynical and that this does get passed and signed. My son has moved to NYC and I have so far refused to visit him because I would have to leave my little friend at home, something I am reluctant to do as it's a long drive each way and I'm legal to carry in all intervening states except NJ.

I have to wonder, though, what places like NY or NJ are likely to do with a law like this. NY has effectively gutted the FOPA by their interpretation that stopping overnight ends your protection from prosecution, even if it's just a night in a motel on an otherwise continuous journey. I would expect a much more hostile reaction to a law like this, especially in the rabidly anti-gun areas like the 5 boroughs.

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think the 14th Amendment clearly provides all states muse respect the privileges or immunities of citizenship, and also (in section 5) provides that Congress may enforce that through legislation.

Because the 2nd amendment addresses a fundamental right, I see this as a completely justified use of Congressional power.

I can drive in any of the states. I think you should be able to carry in other states. I have carried for 46 years, if I go over the boarder to NJ am I going to change where I'm dangerous

Glenn K, drivers license reciprocity has always been by agreement among the states. AFAIK it has never involved the federal government (that may not be true for commercial drivers, I just don't know.) I don't think the states acted out of Constitutional Correctness - it was just that every state has an interest in their citizens being allowed to drive in other states without hassle, and the price of that is allowing other citizens to drive in your state.

In contrast, MOST states don't care whether their citizens can carry guns in other states. (Until recently, most states didn't want their citizens carrying in their OWN state, and even now I think it's fair to say that many states allow it only grudgingly.) So if national reciprocity is going to come it is going to have to come from outside the state governments. No way that states like NY or CA would EVER perceive enough value in allowing their citizens to carry outside their respective state lines to allow those crazed outsiders to carry inside their state.

Matthew C.: Oregon does not offer reciprocity to neighboring states as you state. Oregon does allow residents of neighboring states to obtain an Oregon CHL with cause. Significant difference. A handfull of other states do recognize Oregon CHL but not through any formal reciprocity agreement as Oregon recognizes no other state permits and the OAR does not include a mechanism for reciprocity agreements to my knowledge. Moreover, we are not on the verge of reciprocity. The Dems in Salem effectively killed the reciprocity bill last session in the Senate. Oregon needs HR 822 just as much as CA, NW, NJ, HI, etc.