HR 822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

[Burk Cornelius]

OK, constitutional scholars, is this really a good thing?

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Here is one part that I find troubling

H.R. 822 would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state .............The audit would also include ........ the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety.

Do we really want the Comptroller of US deciding the effectiveness of our State laws?

 

[Jefpainthorse]

I hope this dies in the Senate or gets vetoed. Permits (as bad as they are) are a States Rights issue... and the States should decide who they will honor.

All the States have figured out marriage licences and drivers licences, they will work out Carry permit issues. If we let the Feds into this arena we will all end up "registered".

"They" can't take the guns, but they sure want to know who the shooters are.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

I think you get it brother

 

[Dieseltech09]

What does this mean?

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state's law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

 

[dennishoddy]

I'm not in favor of this at all. The states have been working this out amongst themselves. The more we can keep the feds out of our business, the better I like it.
Currently I don't have to notify anybody to travel in the following states:

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/Concealed_Weapons_Licensing/Reciprocity/index.html


ALASKA
ALABAMA
ARKANSAS
ARIZONA
COLORADO
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA



NEBRASKA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW MEXICO
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WYOMING

 

[Burk Cornelius]

What does this mean?

There are a lot of things about this Bill that concern me. That is just one of them

 

[dennishoddy]

What does this mean?

When I was in College at NOC, I had a class where we talked about old laws still on the books, so I did a report on it.
In Tonkawa Ok, You had to notify the local Chief of Police, 24 hours before you brought a horsless carriage into the city limits. When entering the city, you had to have a flagman walk 50 yds in front of the vehicle to warn horsemen.
Reminds me of the,
Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state's law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

 

[jimeradams]

This one will have too many fingers stirring the pot and wanting their pet issue inserted for it to be anything other than a huge three-eyed, fifteen toed monster! There will be too many ornerous items inserted that it will be impossible for the average (is there such a thing) person to be able to comply with!

 

[Jackary]

I agree with Dennis, as it is now we don't have to notify anyone the has reciprocity agreements with Oklahoma if we intend to travel through one of those states. I hope this gets shut down.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

My feeling is that this is one of those bills that someone introduced knowing that it would never get through both sides and they get to say they are pro-gun!

Maybe Altenhofel will post his opinion. He is way more knowledgeable on this stuff than I am

 

[Scott Hearn]

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by "preserving" state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Look at the amendment authors. Bunch of democrats just circling like vultures.
But yea, they prolly oughtta leave the states alone on this one. Like the idea in general, but just too much opportunity for democrat tampering.

 

[Dieseltech09]

Here is the response I got from Congressman Lankford when I emailed him expressing my concerns about HR 822 and asking him to support HR 2900.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about H.R. 2900, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. While some Americans simply sit by and hope things will change, I appreciate the time you took to engage yourself in this important matter of Constitutional rights.



As you may know, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced the SAFE Act on September 13, 2011. This legislation would ensure law-abiding citizens with appropriate permits or licenses to carry concealed weapons across different jurisdictions and state lines.



The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens. As an outdoorsman and member of the NRA, I am acutely aware of the many conditions and stipulations which gun owners must meet when exercising this basic constitutional right. It can often become confusing and burdensome for America's gun owners to participate in regular recreational activities without their inherent constitutional rights being infringed. The SAFE Act seeks to remedy this common problem by simply establishing national reciprocity for individuals with concealed carry permits. If enacted, permitted citizens in one state would be able to carry their concealed weapon into another state freely without the burden of conscience of unknowingly breaking the law.



I strongly believe in ensuring protection of the Second Amendment. Rest assured, I will continuously uphold our Constitutional freedoms by protecting American's rights to bear arms. Currently, this bill is being reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further action. As I monitor the SAFE Act's movement to the House floor, I will also continue to oppose any and all efforts to deny responsible citizens their constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

I haven't heard of HR1200 but when I searched for it, it appeared to be a welfare/health care bill. Did you mention HR822 an then he brought up HR1200?

 

[Dieseltech09]

HR2900 not HR1200

 

[Burk Cornelius]

HR2900 not HR1200

DOH!

 

[Dieseltech09]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2900:

 

[Burk Cornelius]

That is short and to the point and make more sense.........it will never pass

A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that 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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. 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:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

• • 
    `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

• • 
    `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:[/left]

• • 
    `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

 

[Brian Altenhofel]

First and foremost, this is one of the many reasons that I refuse to support the National Rifle Association. This is another one of their exercises in ensuring that the Second Amendment is always threatened so that they have a reason to continue to exist.

If the NRA hadn't pushed so hard for Due Process incorporation rather than Privileges or Immunities incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), reciprocity wouldn't even be an issue. However, what really irks me about the NRA on this particular measure is their blatant use of false information (driver's license reciprocity - they infer on their "fact sheet" that it's under federal law) to further their agenda. To me, that makes the NRA no better than the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

But the reason that we don't have reciprocity is not because of a lack of federal law, but rather because of court precedent.

Article IV §§ 1-2 of the United States Constitution originally provided a means of incorporating the Constitution against the states which makes the Constitution a tool to fend off encroachments against liberty by the States. But early in the nation's history, the general sentiment was that this was an unacceptable amount of federal power, even though it wasn't a federal government power. While there was never a Supreme Court decision addressing this part of the Constitution, the circuit court decision in Corfield v. Corwell (1823) was highly respected and neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

After the War of Northern Aggression, the debates around the Fourteenth Amendment included discussion about the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV. It was decided to model the Privileges or Immunities of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Privileges and Immunities Clause as a legislative attempt to overturn the existing court precedent. However, Privileges or Immunities was quickly neutered through the Slaughter-House Cases.

And even though the current Supreme Court finds the Slaughter-House precedent to be "flawed", it was too "inconvenient" to be revisited in McDonald. (You can read more of my commentary on that here.)

Assuming that HR 822 passes the Senate and gets signed into law, this just opens up another broad avenue for Second Amendment litigation. This is a direct result of Due Process incorporation. And the threat of Second Amendment litigation is how 2A groups stay in business. If 2A groups truly believe that the Constitution protects our rights, then they would never consider Due Process as a means of incorporation. Organization that fight for Due Process granting of rights believe that it is the place of government to tell you that you can or can't keep and bear arms, that you can or can't freely express yourself, and that you can or can't receive a fair trial when you break one of their rules.

--

Re: Lankford's form letter response:

To me, his vote on HR 822 says a lot. It tells me that he only supports the Constitution when it is politically expedient for him to do so. With his vote on HR 822, he showed that he doesn't mind expressing a disregard of the Constitution because of popular opinion or a strong lobbying effort. In other words he's just another political pawn for the GOP.

Before he got elected, he was one of the people I most respected. I hoped that he would actually be solid after being elected and be able to keep that same level of respect from me, even giving him a pass on "Religious Right" matters as long as he remained consistent. After about 3 months in office, my respect for Mr. Lankford dropped to near zero.

 

[dennishoddy]

Thanks Brian. I really enjoy reading your blogs.