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 1-30 of 53 total comments.

  • theaton 04/18/2011 9:20am
    Link Reply
    + 13

    Why do we need legislation for this? Why don’t we force people to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?

    Article IV, Section 1.: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

  • Comm_reply
    GROM 09/10/2011 9:32am

    Because NY, NJ, CA, and a few others ignore and violate the oath they took. This bill would force them to obey the Supreme Law of the Land.

  • Comm_reply
    TheSmokingArgus 09/14/2011 6:27pm

    The Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government not the States. Your problems lie with the New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois state constitutions, not the federal charter, lest you prefer a Nationalist Democracy, you would be well served to learn and appreciate the tenants of federalism as espoused by the Founding Generation.

    Now should all state constitutions be required to mirror the federal Bill of Rights prior to admission or continued membership in the union; yes of course, but asking the federal government to violate the 10th Amendment simply because we believe the right to self-defense is inherent is not a good enough reason for us to demand the federal government enforce our view upon another state.

  • Comm_reply
    RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:17pm

    Your problem is assuming the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states.

    Most of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” against the states. Including the Second Amendment in a 2010 Supreme Court decision (McDonald v Chicago).

    Regardless of how you feel about the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, it is the way it is.

    This bill is a good thing and will save lives someday.

  • Comm_reply
    isadora14104 02/07/2012 2:43pm

    Shall-issue laws permitting the carrying of concealed firearms (CCW) (where law enforcement has no discretion in issuing a permit or license) do not appear to reduce crime, and no credible statistical evidence exists that such permissive CCW laws reduce crime. There is evidence permissive CCW laws generally will increase crime. Source: Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime”

    For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

  • Comm_reply
    GROM 09/19/2011 9:18am

    The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the Federal Government nor to the States. It applies to the people. It protects basic and individual rights of Americans. Therefore, those basic laws should apply no matter where you live because they’re universal.

  • Comm_reply
    lremmell64 05/29/2012 11:51pm

    No, the Bill of Rights, are the rights to which all people of America are given and are there for the government to abide by. If they were not identified in the Constitution, as they have been, then the Feds could simply walk all over the citizens. Today we have a large Goliath Federal Government with people, both elected and appointed, who think they no longer work for the people of these United States of America and are attempting to evade the Constitution, as law of the land, and enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws.

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:32am

    “ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
    “shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the Federal Government OR the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. “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.” The RIGHT (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved to) the people.

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 1:11am

    This is not an issue of States’ rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens’ US Constitutional rights!

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:51am

    “ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED[Amendment 2]"
    “shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the Federal Government OR the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. “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.[Amendment 10]" The RIGHT (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved to) the people.

  • Comm_reply
    lremmell64 05/29/2012 11:44pm

    The Federal Governmentnalready over steps their Jurisdiction, for lack of a better word, and requires States to abide by Federal Law. There are laws from FDA, EPA, IRS, DHS, HUD, etc.

    Manyw, if not all States, need their Governors and State Assemblies to stand up to the Feds and let them know where the boundaries are and to stick to those boundaries. Unfortunately, many Governors are unaware of the powers they hold.

  • Comm_reply
    Amazon 11/19/2011 5:00pm

    Making a new law isn’t going to fix the issue, if they’re willing to ignore the oath they took, what makes you think they won’t ignore this law?

  • Comm_reply
    Ajscott123 12/06/2011 4:54pm

    The more important question is why isn’t there an enforcement arm of the Judicial branch that, in cooperation with the Justice department, authorizes a corrective action to states’ laws to protect the right to bear arms?

    THAT is the legislation that needs to be introduced.

  • Comm_reply
    lremmell64 05/29/2012 11:54pm

    The Feds already have such a group that provides oversight on this, but our founding Fathers did not intend for the Federal level to provide or manage laws, but to each of the States.

  • Comm_reply
    flcjinflorida 10/10/2011 12:03pm

    By having this legislation, we are forcing them to uphold the constitution.

  • danowskij01 05/07/2011 10:47pm

    Where as I fully support this bill, it would not affect my home state of new york as concealed carry is practically forbiden on Long Island and in new york city as well as the surrounding counties. I hope that if it should succeed, that new york will join the rest of the civilized USA and uphold our constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    OldNYFirefighter 11/16/2011 11:17pm

    Not likely with Schumer, McCarthy & Gillibrand still in the Senate & House. Most upstate Counties with the exception of Albany, usually issue un-restricted CCW Permits. In Albany County you have to be a LEO, Politician, friend of the Judge & definitely a Democrat to have an un-restricted CCW Permit. Albany County Government is still living in the year 1687.

  • hbquikcomjamesl 07/11/2011 6:01pm

    “Uphold our Constitution”??

    Face facts:
    The first 13 words of the Second Amendment are a qualifier for the remaining 14. Nowhere else in the Constitution do we see that sort of qualification.

    Consider the First Amendment: it states the most basic Freedoms and Rights as absolutes, even though common sense tells us that they cannot reasonably be treated as such: Freedom of Speech and of the Press does not extend to untruths that are of a defamatory, fraudulent, or perjurous nature; neither does Freedom of Worship extend to rituals involving Human Sacrifice.

    Even the broadest understanding of “A well regulated militia” implies people who can be trusted to store and use firearms responsibly, in defense of their communities. It clearly cannot include criminals, or those whose grasp on reality is questionable, or those who cannot be bothered to learn how to safely store or use firearms.

    In other words, the Second Amendment demands that the States keep firearms out of The Wrong Hands.

  • Comm_reply
    infantryNJNG 04/02/2012 12:54pm

    The problem is I am a resident of NJ. I am also in the NJ National Guard 114th Infantry Regiment. I am more qualified than the majority of the police officers in my state. Most of the officers in my town are right out of high school and I had to educate them on gun laws and functionalities of such weapons. Yet if they applied for a CCW permit they are automatically granted one, but when I apply twice I am instantly denied.

  • solis93 09/08/2011 6:32pm

    The biggest issue seems to be on criminals being able to get permits. The law states clearly that ANY person committed of a felony is not entitled to one. Period. On the other hand, there are so many non-violent felonies in our books that this law prevents good people from having access, and by extension, prevent them from being able to protect themselves and their families against dangerous criminals.

    So for me the greater issue is whether or not a person that has been convicted of a non-violent felony, where a weapon was not used, should lose their gun rights forever. You do a crime, you do the time. After which, all rights should be restored. If you wouldn’t trust them with a permit, don’t release them in the first place.

    Having said all of that, I don’t believe that violent criminals, or the criminally insane should have access to guns, much less a permit to carry one.

    As for the Constitution: I don’t remember the Founding Fathers saying anything about permits.

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

    Great post. Laws pertaining to felony convictions create an underclass of lifetime criminals.
    When they get out and realize they can’t do really anything without it haunting them, recidivism becomes a likely alternative to going straight.

    It sucks.

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:41am

    Under Federal law the following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

  • Comm_reply
    Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:42am

    Continued:
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

  • vinmega 09/10/2011 10:33pm

    If this bill passes that would mean that the states would have to follow the law of the land. This would be good as criminals are never going to apply for any permits, lets not kid ourselves on this fact. In my state of NJ gun ownership is treated as a privilege not a right. I cannot carry a gun to protect my family and myself on a day to day basis, yet when I travel I have the right to carry a gun. This is wrong. In all of the years of carrying a gun, I have never pulled it once. Most gun owners who choose to carry take that responsibility very seriously as a gun is a deadly tool. I do not believe that people with mental health issues should have a gun, and I do not believe that any violent criminal should have a gun. I also know that in reality the criminals have lots of guns, and that’s why regular people have to protect themselves. You buy insurance, yet nothing happens, you don’t question the insurance because when something does happen, you are so damn thankful for that insurance

  • Wolf45acp 09/13/2011 2:10am
    Link Reply
    + 10

    The issue of the term “A well regulated militia” is settled law and not even worth discussion any more. No one is suggesting criminals, mentally ill persons, etc… be allowed to keep and bear arms.

    My rights to free speech, to be free from unlawful searches and seizure, to a speedy and public trial, etc… do not end at state lines. Nor should my right to keep and bear arms.

  • Comm_reply
    pmoore 11/17/2011 12:01am

    Let’s get a bill out there that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and psychos, and then we’ll talk about your rights.

  • Comm_reply
    1ColdFalcon 11/17/2011 5:18pm

    There already are laws that are intended to keep firearms out of the hands of these people, with limited success. Criminals and those up to no good will always find a way to get what they want—that’s why they are criminals—they operate outside of established law. Should we outlaw every hunting knife, length of rope, piece of wire, ice pick, hatchet, automobile, and body of water in the country? Each has been used as a weapon to take a life—but if you take them away, I couldn’t go hunt or fish even for a weekend. The issue is that this legislation is a back-door method of gun control, just cleverly disguised. It is another attempt to chip away at the right to keep and bear arms. I live in Alaska—wild animals stroll onto the University campus every day, and bears come through my neighborhood. If your rights are being violated in your state, take it through the courts. It is your right to do so, just as it is our right to keep and bear arms.

  • dolamite74 09/13/2011 2:15pm

    I hope this passes since living in California my 2nd Amendment rights are violated daily.

    May Issue = Corruption and Elitist attitudes 8( The only way I can get a permit is if I am Rich or of Elite status (movie industry or entertainer).

    I have taken all the classes needed but my Retired Sheriff who teaches the class told me forget about it. He basically told me you will not get your permit unless you sue the issuing agency in court. I do not have thousands of dollars to spend to go to court.

  • Comm_reply
    TheSmokingArgus 09/14/2011 6:23pm

    Take it up with your fundamentally flawed state Constitution via your General Assembly.

    Please quit asking the federal government to violate the 10th Amendment solely based on your support of this particular issue.

  • TheSmokingArgus 09/14/2011 6:21pm

    This bill is unnecessary and a patent violation of the 10th Amendment. Shame be upon those who pretend to support the Constitution, but when push comes to shove are more than happy to reject the principles of federalism in favor a Nationalist decree.

    With 49 states already acknowledging the inherent natural right to self-defense and conceal carry, the more appropriate course of action is for those in Illinois to lobby their state assemblies in order to change their oppressive law and abhorrent state constitution.


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