U.S. Congress - H.R.822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
H.R.822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
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. view all titles (5)
All Bill Titles
- Official: 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. as introduced.
- Short: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 as introduced.
- Official: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 as introduced.
- Short: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 as reported to house.
- Short: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 as passed house.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 31-53 of 53 total comments.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
forgive my poor spelling
Spam Comment
Well said!
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Eventually, I hope, SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: “By what definition of ‘shall not be infringed’ is regulation of how and where the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is exercised, NOT an infringement?”.
Spam Comment
We here in Missouri have CCW. Will the federal permit replace the states permit. The folks in the W.H. have been looking for a way to further restrict gun owners rights, let alone right to carry. They have no problem lying to congress, and the people to get what they want.
there is no federal permit, instead the fed requires that state recognize each others existing permits. so for instance, you will still have to get your missouri permit, but your permit would now authorize you to continue carrying in new york or illinois.
You appear to be using these “qualifiers” as an excuse to keep arms out of the hands of ALL poeple if the state desires. A convenient way to disarm the populace. The REAL meaning of those “first 14 words” is to establish the necessity of the remaining ones. Remember also that NOTHING in the Constitution was EVER intended to limit the people, only the government. Additionally, the Constitution DOES NOT grant any rights, they are already ours and cannot be removed by government restrictions.
We have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, economy teetering on the verge of another recession and this is what republicans are concerned with at this time…really? This is a testament to the stupidity of many voters in this country…“The world around me could be turning to sh*t, but as long as I have my bible and my gun, it’s all good.”
well since no one can seem to figure out how that the best way to stimulate the economy is to limit government involvement (which is proven throughout the United States history btw), they might as well do something productive.
The comparison to free speech is interesting. But wouldn’t the correct application of that be a constitutional challenge to any state infringing on some definition of the right in question?
Spam Comment
For me, everything comes down to ONE basic question. Do I TRUST the Government to dictate whom among us have the right to bear arms? Or do I trust myself with that decision? For me, NO ONE has the right to choose what is best for me. Not the collective, not a dictator, not the United Nations or because of a treaty with foreign governments or organizations, and certainly not our own Government… it’s a matter of TRUST and true FREEDOM.
I just want to know at what point did the individual States have the right to violate someone’s 2nd Amendment Right? Aren’t we the United States? Why should the State that I reside in get to decide when it should be the Federal Government that my 2nd Amendment Right is based in? My 1st Amendment isn’t restricted when I cross State lines. Why should my 2nd Amendment be?
Love how much more concerned Americans are with the right to play cowboy and their stupid infatuation with guns then issues that really matter. I just don’t understand it. Guns kill plain and simple and there is nothing analogous to them.
Dear Congress, deal with the real issues that effect Americans day in and day out and leave the playground stuff alone.
As a woman, small business owner and mother who frequently travels across the U.S. alone carrying large amounts of merchandise and cash I don’t feel that I want to “play cowboy.” I simply want to be safe. CCW permit holders submit fingerprints, have annual background checks and go through a firearms safety course to have the privlege. Criminals who own guns do not.
I dont understand what all the fuss is about. Reading this bill, and as I understand it, ALL it would do is force, say, MA to recognize my NH CCW license, no different than them recognizing my drivers license. However, I would STILL have to obey THEIR laws pertaining to firearms, just like obeying THEIR LAWS concerning use of my motor vehicle.
What this means is, I would be able to conceal and carry my 7 round .380 across the border, but Dad could NOT take his Glock, the ability/inability to defend yourself self would also be dictated by their laws, and MUST obeyed.
This bill is all about the Comptroller General getting into the backdoor on the states. They think ANY federalization is good, even if its just a sneaky seemingly innocuous bill like this. They vote this in, then without a vote they AUTHORIZE the Comptroller General more power to regulate. Don’t let the camel put his head in the tent.