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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-53 of 53 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:20pm

    No. The more appropriate course of action is to keep filing lawsuit after lawsuit in federal court until states start respecting the Second Amendment which has been ruled as an individual right for the purpose of self-defense and then again incorporated against the states.

    Your logic fails because you don’t put the Second Amendment on the same level as the First Amendment, where it belongs.

  • Comm_reply
    TheBeleranEffect 10/28/2011 7:38am

    The court has already ruled that the 10th amendment does not make it so that the federal government cannot give itself more regulatory powers. (United States v. Darby)

  • Comm_reply
    thedeuce 11/01/2011 8:52am

    so you’re saying that states should be able to decide whether or not they want to recognize another states drivers license? i see nothing in this bill that constitutes a violation of states rights, but instead what i see protects indavidual rights. i live in maryland and, like california, you cannot, unless you are rich and or influential, get a ccw permit, nor carry if you are from out of state. people in virginia are very able to get a ccw permit, but the moment they continue exercising their right into maryland they are felons. that’s not right and constitutes an interstate issue, which is federal territory.

  • Comm_reply
    thedeuce 11/01/2011 8:53am

    forgive my poor spelling

  • RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:23pm

    See: District of Columbia v Heller (2008): Supreme Court rules Second Amendment protects individual right to own firearm for self-defense.

    See: McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Supreme Court rules that Second Amendment applies to states and incorporates it against them.

    Your personal feelings and emotions are irrelevant. You’re not on the Supreme Court. You lose.

  • RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:23pm

    Well said!

  • Spam Comment

  • Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 1:05am

    My thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry:
    1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”. These restrictions probably would not constitute “infringement”, however, the specific exclusions would be subject to SCOTUS review:
    The classes of people ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition are posted above.
    2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
    3. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in May-Issue States as well as the prohibition for Concealed Carry in Illinois and Washington DC, would probably constitute an “infringement” and should be declared such by the SCOTUS.

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 1:08am

    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?”.

  • flcjinflorida 10/10/2011 12:01pm

    Actually, if you read this bill correctly, you can get an out of state license and use it in the state of New York. They have to accept a license from any other state, and some states have a permit for non-residents. It may cost you a bit more, but I think it would be worth it.

  • squirl_55 10/13/2011 10:45pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    thedeuce 11/01/2011 8:56am

    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.

  • sideng 10/14/2011 6:41pm

    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.

  • maxim80 10/15/2011 11:51am

    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.”

  • Comm_reply
    thedeuce 11/01/2011 9:03am

    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.

  • PaulSiraisi 10/24/2011 10:32pm

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    thedeuce 11/01/2011 9:01am

    not quite, 49/50 states currently have some form of concealed carry on the books, however (disregarding the may-issue states) the problem is that south carolina, for instanc, doesn’t recognize any state permit but their own, and they only issue to residents, so if i’m from north carolina and i need to do a lot of business in SC, i i can’t exercise my rights. this doesn’t replace state permits, but it does give them reach across state lines.

  • btrask3 11/05/2011 1:52pm

    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.

  • rczj 11/16/2011 1:46pm

    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?

  • bingocimo 12/01/2011 7:14pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Mo_Mom 01/24/2012 2:10pm

    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.

  • ferrets1 01/16/2012 11:27pm

    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.

  • libertyczar 01/11/2013 11:20pm

    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.


Vote on This Bill

86% Users Support Bill

1062 in favor / 176 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments