Four Flaws in HR 822, how to fix them

[TheTman]

From Gun Owners of America:
Urgent Alert


The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Tuesday, Nov. 15. H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.


While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.



Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.


And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.


ACTION:


Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501).



Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry


In

Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of


Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is “too pro-gun.”

Separate legislation H.R. 2900—supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)—would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.



Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry



Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry—where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff’s office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.




In recent years,


Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming
have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model.
Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and
Texas passed a “constitutional carry lite” law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don’t like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.


About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

Contact your Representative to send a pre-written message (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501).


Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in “May Issue” States



H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for


Illinois and the state of one’s residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e.,
California, Maryland, and Massachusetts) it’s nearly impossible for residents to get a permit. Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive “may issue” states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.


In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts “teeth” into that ruling.



Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms “have been shipped in interstate commerce,” the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the “commerce” the Founder’s envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.


The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything – [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”


The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.



Respecting the Constitution


Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.


H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Rep. Broun’s legislation.



ACTION:

Contact your Representative and ask that he or she urge the leaders of the House to amend H.R. 822 to fix its serious concerns. The pre-written letter also asks your Rep. to cosponsor the Broun legislation (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501) .




I guess they are still debating on this bill, with certain democrats and even some pro-gun groups trying their best to derail it.

You can decide for yourself if the GOA points of contention matters or not, the NRA says it's a great bill and needs to be passed as it is, I think the GOA is trying to make sure some good legislations is made even better with a few addtions from Rep. Broun's bill. H.R. 2900. I know many of us aren't a member of GOA, so I thought I'd pass along their message to those who wouldn't normally get a chance to see it.

[tv_racin_fan]

#1 I believe Vermont already issues a permit for those who wish to be able to carry in other states for the purposes of reciprocity. Thus this is a non issue and no way would other states go for an ID in lieu of permit, they do not wish to give up thier cash cow of a permit system.

#2 This is a non issue. The states can all legislate constitutional carry if they so desire and they can very easily issue a permit for those citizens wishing to carry outside of their own state but not in a constitutional carry state.

#3 Is also a non issue. Illinois is on the verge of becoming a carry permit state and will do so in the next few years. The citizens will demand it when they see that other states do not become the "wild west" or "Dodge City" with blood flowing in the streets as the anti gunners continue to claim will occur when the people are allowed to carry. Much as other states citizens have demanded their legislatures pass carry laws or more lenient carry laws. One need only refer to a map comparing carry laws across the nation from 1986 and the same map of today to see how the laws have progressed in the favor of those wishing to be allowed to carry.

#4 Again a non issue. Congress and the federal govt have already expanded the so called commerce clause about as far as it can be stretched when they can force everyone to purchase a product such as healthcare insurance.

It should be argued that a carry permit should already be valid in every state much like a marriage cert or a drivers permit. The problem I have with the idea of a National Reciprocity bill or any sort of National Carry bill or provision is the notion that the Federal Govt will demand some sort of national standard for the issuance of a permit that would be reciprocated. I do not wish to have the federal govt force my state into changing the very lenient standards I currently enjoy. I in fact would push for a National Constitutional Carry standard or actually non standard.. AND I believe it is taken care of in the US Constitution.. something about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.. seems any sort of requirement to obtain a permit is indeed an infringement and in my opinion neither the federal govt nor any state govt has the right to infringe on any Constitutionally protected right.

[mr surveyor]

First, I am NOT a fan of GOA. Now, that being said, I guess I do agree that this is bad juju. Not from the particular issues that Dudley Brown and the GOA tend to spout about, but from the simple truth that anything the federal government gets their tentacles into always turns into crap. Plain and simple. I do not want the fed any more involved in the firearms issues as they are now.... actually I would prefer much LESS involvement. If folks in their respective states don't like their state laws.... change them or move. The state reciprocity laws we currently have now could use some tweaking, but leave it to the states to work it out.

Can you tell that I rarely travel outside the borders of Texas;)

surv

[aray]

I agree with the "non issue" assessment on numbers 1-4 that tv_racin_fan made, and for the reasons he cited above. But let me expound on just a couple of those points:

By the GOA saying HR 822 "Destroys Vermont Carry" is just not true. They hold no rights now that will in any way be diminished if this bill becomes law. They can Constitutionally Carry today; they can Constitutionally Carry tomorrow. Nothing is "destroyed" & shame on the GOA for using emotional language they know will be misinterpreted. As for interstate carry with permit (which is a separate issue unrelated to intrastate no-permit) well tv_racin_fan adequately addressed that above.

The other point I'd like to highlight is their claim that HR 822 "does not help many residents in 'may issue' states". Three aspects to consider here:
1) Even if we accept that argument at face value, so what? No harm no foul. I'm in one of those May Issue states (Maryland). I can't carry in MD today; I won't be able to carry in MD tomorrow. So I'm worse off ... how?
2) But I don't accept GOA's claims at face value anyway because indirectly it isn't true. Certainly MD isn't going to cough up a permit to me if HR 822 becomes law. But what they will HAVE to do is to recognize the permits of ALL other states (minus IL and MD). This puts the legislators in MD's General Assembly and our Governor in an untenable position. That is to say, they hide behind the false claim that if CCW were permitted in this state on a large scale, that blood would flow in the streets. After HR 822 passes, we'll be able to say to them: "So the citizens of 48 states are CCWing in Maryland now - how's that blood flowing in the streets working out for ya, eh?" The last vestige of their claims will be laid bare. We'll be in a much stronger position when we can point out that MD allows millions of out-of-state permit holders to carry here ... but won't do the same for its own citizens. That's not a political battle they can long defend.
3) Finally, even if you forget about MD and other May Issue states and assume (falsely) that nothing will change here, it's not really about us anyway. What it will do it to significantly enhance the rights of gun owners in almost all other states across the nation who do need to travel beyond the borders of their own states. That by itself is a good reason to support the bill. I'll be there cheering you on from the sidelines.

So yes - bring it on, pass HR 822.

[tv_racin_fan]

As I see it.... IF the bill is passed there will be compromises to get it passed. I have no problem with decent compromises normally but I do have issue here. Mainly I have issue here because the Constitution spells out explicitly that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty much makes any law restricting my right to keep and bear unconstitutional so long as I am not violating anyone else rights while keepin an bearin.

Ok that said I fear that the compromise that will be made will be in the area of a minimum standard. Now for some guys it wont mean anything since their state will have already met that standard. For guys in other states (like me) it will very likely mean a different standard and an increase in the cost of aquiring the permit. As it stands all I have to do is apply, pass the background check, pay the fee... and I am issued the permit.

[aray]

FYI debate on HR 822 is going on right now and is being streamed live here: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

They are debating and voting on amendments to the bill now. One of the amendments that has already been defeated is imposition of minimum standards. It was defeated along with other amendments such as you must be 21 to cross state lines, 24 hour waiting period, etc. Looks like a clean bill is going to pass the House.

[aray]

And HR 822 just passed the House as a clean bill with no bad amendments. I looked away from my screen for a bit but I think the vote was 273 to 154.

[O'Dell]

I still wish we could safely leave it to the states, but then we have the no-nothing politicians in states like NY, CA, and IL.

[bonjorno2]

they will tear it apart like everything else... i'll keep my eye on it though!

[TheTman]

I couldn't sit thru watching the big shots defending the million dollar bonuses for helping bankrupt the country.

[tv_racin_fan]

I had no doubt a decent bill would pass thru the House. The sticking point will be the Senate and the compromise committee that will draft the final bill.

[muggsy]

I never could understand why we need a permit to exercise a God given constitutionally guaranteed right. I consider the need to obtain a permit to carry as an infringement of our second amendment rights. Since when do State laws supersede our constitutionally guaranteed rights?

[mr surveyor]

I still do NOT like this bill. If the Fed gives itself the authority to force the states to recognize each other's state issued concealed carry permits, there could be no end to the fed involvement. Given that every state has either small differences or major differences in licensing requirements (and carry laws in general), the states currently have the right to review the laws of other states to determine whether or not they believe those that would carry under a reciprocity agreement are adequately prepared to honor the laws of their state. If the Fed claims the authority to force the "May Issue" states to recognize the permits of the "Shall Issue" states, the next step will (out of necessity) to require some type of consistency in licensing requirements across the nation. And, given that the Federal government can't seem to use the KISS principle, at some point in time that carry laws themselves will have to be made consistant across the nation. There's no end when the fed gets involved. Also, keep in mind the lawmakers aren't just making this a Second Amendment issue, they are calling upon the all powerful "Commerce Clause" to support this. That alone should be enough to scare anyone in their right mind away from this legislation.

That's just my personal opinions based on a lifelong distrust of "lawmakers" in general.

I could take this mandatory license reciprocity down to a personal professional level, and it would make just about the same amount of sense. Anyone issued a professional license to survey land boundaries in one state should be allowed by federal mandate to survey in any state in the nation that also issues licenses to persons in their state. From a professional level, I see that though as complete folly.


surv

[jeepster09]

If it doesn't pass I am for states NOT ALLOWING other states driver licenses when crossing borders.

"CAN WE SAY COMMON SENSE" would be nice once in awhile.

[MikeyKahr]

I understand the concerns. I have some of them myself. But I must say it would be nice to stick it to certain states. I hate disarming every time I go through IL and NY. I'm with aray on this one.

Sent using Tapatalk

[mr surveyor]

how is this going to help you in Illinois?

[earle8888]

Following up on O'Dell....Letting the Camel's, (Feds) nose in the tent is a very very scary thing!!!! I fear that ONCE the Fed's get a toe hold e.i. the Fed's can arbitrate to the state thus negating states rights, otherwise stating...If the fed's get a legislative mandate to oversee/mandate the rules states must bow to pursuant to concealed carrying of firearms or weapons. This will be a spring board for more and more Fed interference and I feel fearful of the values they, the Fed., will adopt, thus mandate, until challenged to the extent it's adjudication by the Supreme Court, which can take years!!!!!
That being said I obviously am opposed to it.

[MikeyKahr]

how is this going to help you in Illinois?

Once IL passes a pro-CCW law, and now being the only one left not to I don't think it will be too long, no matter how restrictive they make it, I'm looking forward to them having to honor out-of-state licensees. I'm crazy I guess. And I know, lots of ifs, lots of things falling into place.

Sent using Tapatalk

[aray]

how is this going to help you in Illinois?

It won’t other than what MikeyKahr just said. Illinois is the one state unaffected by this bill. But if you travel it will help you in the other 49 states, particularly the May Issue states like: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (yes – home of Mayor Bloomberg!), Rhode Island, or any other state that has more restrictive permit laws than yours – then it will help. Today if you go into those states with your gun and they catch you, you're likely to be arrested, convicted, sent to prison, and lose your carry permit even back in your own home state because you now have a firearms violation.


I still do NOT like this bill. … There's no end when the fed gets involved. Also, keep in mind the lawmakers aren't just making this a Second Amendment issue, they are calling upon the all powerful "Commerce Clause" to support this. That alone should be enough to scare anyone in their right mind away from this legislation.

Although I do support the bill I do also understand your concerns and share them. Guess I must not be in my right mind. :madgrin: Anyway, here’s my thinking on that aspect:

From an Enumerated Powers perspective (Article 1 Section 8) this bill should be unnecessary. From a 10th Amendment perspective (ah, the lost and forgotten amendment, sigh – see below) this bill should be unnecessary. From a 2nd Amendment perspective this bill should be unnecessary. The Framers never intended the Federal Government to have this much power.

Unfortunately we no longer live in the world of the Framers. Long ago previous Congresses, Presidents, and Supreme Courts shredded the original plain language and turned the Constitution into a “living breathing document” which means it means anything they mean it to mean. (See Mr. Surveyor’s excellent indirect reference to Wickard v. Filburn, where farmer Roscoe Filburn’s conviction was upheld for growing more wheat than the government thought he should. He was convicted under the Interstate Commerce Clause – even though there was no interstate crossing, and even though he wasn’t even engaging in Commerce at all! [He was growing wheat not to sell but for complete consumption on his own private property farm.] He was forced to pay a fine and destroy his crops.)

The reality of today’s world is that like it or not (and I don’t) the feds are already involved in gun control. This bill, if it becomes law, improves the rights of law abiding gun owners, and moves us closer back to the original intent of the Second Amendment, in that it decreases the “infringement” on bearing arms.

So while I not only understand but indeed sympathize with the desire to return to the original intent of the Framers, in practice we have to play the hand dealt us.

(Relevant and interesting post script: There were many who fought against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution [which is why as a compromise it had to be placed in the first 10 amendments and not in the original Constitution itself.] Some thought it dangerous, and I can completely understand their point. Why you ask? They argued you don’t NEED a First Amendment because the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government the powers to regulate speech. You don’t NEED a Second Amendment because the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government the powers to regulate keeping & bearing arms. And so on. Indeed by enumerating these rights, future politicians might conclude that if rights weren’t on that list, then the feds could step in and claim authority to regulate over those areas not otherwise specified. In hindsight these fears were well founded. To guard against that danger, they introduced the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to make their intent clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That’s the law of the land. Tragically, that law, that Amendment in our Bill of Rights, critically important as is the First, Second, and others, has become de facto repealed by virtue of being ignored by the politicians and by the SCOTUS itself. Sad, but that's where we are now.)

[Bill K]

Hasn't H.R. 218, "The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act" been to LEOs, present and retired, what what H.R. 822, if passed, will be for us civilians? My two younger brothers are retired police officers (NYPD & Port Authority Police of NY & NJ) and are pretty much pleased with the benefits of the law. I believe they do have to qualify with both a revolver and a semi if they wish to be able to carry both under H.R. 218.

If H.R. 822 should get through the Senate pretty much unchanged from what the House passed do you think that the President would sign the Bill into law or veto the Bill?

[MikeyKahr]

If H.R. 822 should get through the Senate pretty much unchanged from what the House passed do you think that the President would sign the Bill into law or veto the Bill?

I think it would depend on a few things, one being when it would hit his desk - before or after his re-election bid. That said, I think his buddy and pro-gun Senator Reid will squash the bill and its chances of getting to the President anytime soon. Hopefully this will get the NRA to drop that A rating a bit though Reid still has five years left before facing re-election. It will be interesting to watch.

Sent using Tapatalk

[mr surveyor]

I suppose that everyone here does understand the fact that regardless of a federal mandated national reciprocity act that the individual is still responsible to know and follow the letter of the law as written in each state they carry. For most of us that carry, whether in state only or to other states we may have recipricity with, that's a known issue. Yep, at best, this legislation will force all states that have permit programs to honor permits from any of the other 49 states with permit programs. You danged sure better know the idiotic laws of some of these states before you carry, and be well aware of the codified off limits places that aren't required to post even the silly gunbuster signs. I see several issues in the making. The probability of a large increase in the number of arrests of well intentioned travelers through states like NY, CA, etc., that violate some micro detail of those state's firearms laws. I just don't see that NOT happening in some of these states that are totally against reciprocity. And, when issues start popping up in several of these states, the fed will no doubt use the ICC as a reason to be the arbitrator and find it necessary to pass more, and more, and more legislation regarding the interstate carrying of firearms.

And yes, the wheat farmer's case, most of the idiotic EPA regs, federal hunting and fishing regs are all cases of federal government abuse of state powers under the guise of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Why would anyone want the federal government to attempt to force the states into some homogenous micro management of rules or laws that could be much better established at the state level.

Not that it would mean much to non-Texans, but in Texas we have our own version of the "Second Amendment" in Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution: " Right to Bear Arms - Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." In Texas it's always been, and still legal to carry any long gun, loaded and in plain view. Most of us high schoolers in the 60's carried our hunting guns on the gun rack in the rear window of our pick-ups to school. A lot has happened since I drove out of that school parking lot for the last time in 1971, but there is still no state law preventing the carry of long guns in most cases (city ordanances have differing "opinions"). Carrying or "wearing" handguns was a real gray area until we finally got concealed carry legislation passed in the mid 90's, and major incrimental improvements made in most every legislative session since. The "Motorist Protection Act" that passed just a few short years ago made it legal for any law abiding citizen to carry a concealed hand gun in their vehicle (not on their person without a license), including transporting it to and from their home out to their personal vehicle (other minor details in the law as well). We have very good gun laws here in Texas, mostly due to some very dedicated, hard working pro-2A attorneys and state legislators that began the major push in the mid-late 1980's, and it wasn't until Dr. Henrietta Hupp was able to bring some sound advice to the state legislature after losing both her parents (and many other victims) in the Luby's Cafeteria massacre.

These things take hard work at the local and state level. With enough hard work, I'd bet there's enough support in the State of Illinois to pass a good concealed carry law, as well as getting rid of their silly registration styl laws. There's probably not even enough voters in the Chicago cemeteries to block a strong petition in the state.

Having the Fed come in and be the nanny to make us as states play nice with each other just has bad juju to me.

Sorry for the ramble.... I need to get into the bottle of cheap tequila now.

[MikeyKahr]

No need to apologize and it wasn't rambling, you're just sharing your thoughts which I appreciate. Have a good night...but not too good with that Tequila!

Sent using Tapatalk

[TheTman]

I still think anytime you get the federal goverment involved in something these days no good comes from it. Look at all the "good" the EPA, Department of Energy, OSHA, and many other deparments do. I certainly don't want them messing around with my CC permit. I'll bet money they'll find the need to meddle in the CC permit process to make it "fair" for all states, and end up gutting the whole deal, giving us something like NY or CA's CC permit process. So many things start out with good intentions then end up totally screwed.

[mr surveyor]

I still think anytime you get the federal goverment involved in something these days no good comes from it. Look at all the "good" the EPA, Department of Energy, OSHA, and many other deparments do. I certainly don't want them messing around with my CC permit. I'll bet money they'll find the need to meddle in the CC permit process to make it "fair" for all states, and end up gutting the whole deal, giving us something like NY or CA's CC permit process. So many things start out with good intentions then end up totally screwed.



looks like we agree;)

[TheTman]

Thanks Mr Surveyor.
I take all the warnings I get about the Federal Government pretty seriously. I post a lot of them here and get ridiculed and called paranoid and stuff, but if it opens someone's eyes a little then I guess it's worth it. Heck I want to believe everthing is going to be ok too, but nothing wrong with stocking a little extra food in the pantry incase the supply chain gets interuppted for awhile. And maybe having a little extra ammo on hand in case the entitlement crowd doesnt get their check on time and goes on a rampage.

[TriggerMan]

From Gun Owners of America:
Urgent Alert


The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Tuesday, Nov. 15. H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.


While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.



Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.


And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.


ACTION:


Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501).



Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry


In

Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of


Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is “too pro-gun.”

Separate legislation H.R. 2900—supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)—would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.



Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry



Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry—where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff’s office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.




In recent years,



Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming
have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model.

Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and
Texas passed a “constitutional carry lite” law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don’t like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.


About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

Contact your Representative to send a pre-written message (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501).


Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in “May Issue” States



H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for


Illinois and the state of one’s residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e.,
California, Maryland, and Massachusetts) it’s nearly impossible for residents to get a permit. Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive “may issue” states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.


In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts “teeth” into that ruling.



Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms “have been shipped in interstate commerce,” the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the “commerce” the Founder’s envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.


The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything – [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”


The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.



Respecting the Constitution


Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.


H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Rep. Broun’s legislation.



ACTION:

Contact your Representative and ask that he or she urge the leaders of the House to amend H.R. 822 to fix its serious concerns. The pre-written letter also asks your Rep. to cosponsor the Broun legislation (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56532501) .




I guess they are still debating on this bill, with certain democrats and even some pro-gun groups trying their best to derail it.



You can decide for yourself if the GOA points of contention matters or not, the NRA says it's a great bill and needs to be passed as it is, I think the GOA is trying to make sure some good legislations is made even better with a few addtions from Rep. Broun's bill. H.R. 2900. I know many of us aren't a member of GOA, so I thought I'd pass along their message to those who wouldn't normally get a chance to see it.

I've been getting spam emails every other day from National Gun Owners of America. Dudley & Co. are really into Chicken Little mode. Everything looks like a slippery slope.

[ltxi]

The GOA is dangerous to the cause in that their radical, distorted, chicken little rantings mostly border on the kind of paranoid, well, rantings that the Brady Bunch can easily point to as evidence that we're all totally out to lunch.

As an adjunct....For the first time in a year and a half I actually tried to read the latest issue of the Rifleman that came in my mail today. Reaffirmed my resolve to just throw it out with the rest of the/their junk mail. Once upon a time, very long ago and in a land far, far away, the Rifleman was a real gun mag to be eagerly looked forward to every month. Sadly, sadly no longer.....spoken from the perspective of a 52 year Life, now Benefactor, member.

[TheTman]

I think Dudley and GOA are just very passionate about safeguarding our rights. I see nothing in his "radical, distorted, chicken little rantings" that would give the the gun-grabbers any ammunition to use against those who cherish the 2nd Admendment. His people keep a close eye on the shenanigans in congress and alert us to what is going on. Did anyone else mention anything about the motion added to H.R. 822 that instructs the Government Accounting Office to: “Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.” Just like he warns, the anti-gunners are already trying to use this bill against CC permit holders. That sounds like they are already trying to question the individual State's ability to issue CC permits. We need groups like GOA to keep an eye on congress and let us know what foolishness they are up too. I too find his messages disturbing, not because of his ranting, but because of what he is ranting about.

[tv_racin_fan]

Did anyone catch Larry Pratt on CSPAN Washington Journal?

I was amazed at the non truths...

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-Saturday-November-19/10737425639/

Catch the first bit with the map where he explains the differences in the differing states may issue and shall issue laws. Specifically where he says that the dark blue states means they don't reciprocate with other states.. GA being one of those dark blue states reciprocates with every state surrounding it except SC.

[TheTman]

The legend on the map says the dark blue states "Honor My Permit". I don't know what state he is from, but I guess the dark blue states reciprocate with HIS permit state. Then he has something in red saying "Permits Honored by State" and there are no states in red. There is a small map of the 48 in red to the upper right of the larger map. I don't know what that means.

[tv_racin_fan]

Ok first that is the generic map.. if you want to know which states honor your permit you have to click on your state.

The dark blus states are apparently shall issue states that only issue to their residents. Has nothing to do with reciprocity, Light blue states have non resident permits and so on.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Notice how the map changed when I selected my state (GA).

[TheTman]

What is the point here? I get it that you don't like the guy or his organization, while I think they do a good job of watching congress and keeping us informed. I just watched the video, I didn't see all the untruths you spoke of earlier, just a guy for the most part defending HR 822 and telling us how much better off we would be if it was to become law. What part of that did you object too? I suppose he could have been mistaken in some of his answers to some of the callers, I don't know all the different state laws. I doubt if he does either. I thought he did a pretty good job for a 69 year old guy. I saw Georgia mentioned once, and that was by the announcer saying they had a caller from there and it was a resident only shall issue state.

[tv_racin_fan]

OK. First things first I have no issue with the organization or the guy in particular EXCEPT I wish they would stick to the truth.

As far as the deal with the map... the question asked by the host was about the differences between may and shall issue. The map was brought out to sort of help explain. When he asked about the states in dark blue Mr Platt explained that those states do not reciprocate with other states which is patently wrong. That particular map has nothing to do with reciprocity it simply shows which states have which sort of carry permit (concealed carry would be wrong since at least GA allows any sort of carry with the permit). Those dark blue states do not issue permits to people who do not live in the state, unlike some states which do and the blue states are what is known as SHALL issue meaning so long as you pass the background check if you apply they will issue the permit. May issue is up to the descretion of the local issuing authority. Just looking at the map and considering he mentioned that a Utah permit is honored in about 38 states if you count the dark blue states you can see that he HAD to be wrong on some count.

It doesn't help the cause when you do not tell the truth or do not know the truth. Pretty sad in my mind when the spokesman for the group doesn't know what he is talking about.

IF you go all the way back to the original post and check out my responce again. It has everything to do with telling the truth warning about something that is factual.

#1 claims that this bill would destroy Vermont Carry. It does no such thing, Vermont would have the choice to issue a permit or not for purposes of reciprocity and they already have this issue. In fact I believe they have started issuing a permit for this exact reason but they do not require one in order to carry. Thus the warning is patently wrong.

#2 claims that this bill undermines Constitutional Carry. Again I do not see this at all what it does is fix an issue with the current carry laws and in fact the states and the federal govt are free to move to Constitutional Carry at any time. Again a warning that is patently false.

3# claims that this bill doesn't help in the may issue states. Well DUH it never was intended to change the STATES carry laws it simply forces the states to honor the others states permits IF they allow carry for their own citizens. Again a warning about nothing since the bill had no intention of addressing this particular issue.

#4 claims that this bill takes the expansive view of the commerce clause. Well gee what exactly does anyone expect from a congress that enjoys expanding the commerce clause at every whim. This bill does nothing to expand congressional view of the clause.

I am against the bill because I don't want Congress to meddle in the issue UNLESS they are going to do away with infringements on my RKBA. They are more than likely going to have some sort of national standard in the final bill IF anything gets thru the senate. Last thing I want is congress telling my state that they must change their permit process and start infringing me more for the permission of exercising a right that CONGRESS should already be defending against ANY state infringement.

[TheTman]

Utah reciprocates in some way with about 38 states. That is probably what he meant to say, I can't get the video to run today, so I can't hear what he did say.
As far as the maps go, they used at least 2 different but very similiar maps, He may have been referencing on map and they showed us a different map. I imagine he did make some mistakes. I don't see why you want to waste our time nit-picking this guy to death.

In reference to the four items he was warning about,
#1 I can't find anyplace that says Vermont is issuing permits. Here is what the NRAILA has to say about it: "NOTE: Alaska and Vermont allow the concealed carry of firearms without a permit. Vermont residents traveling to other states must first obtain a non-resident permit from that state—if available —prior to carrying concealed. Alaska still issues permits to those who want them, allowing them to
benefit by recognition and reciprocity laws.

The others are things he mentions the bill doesnt do and trying to get these fixed while they are messing with things.