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.

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.

GROM 09/10/2011 9:32am
in reply to theaton Apr 18, 2011 9:20am

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.

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.

RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:17pm
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:27pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:18pm
in reply to solis93 Sep 08, 2011 6:32pm

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.

TheSmokingArgus 09/14/2011 6:27pm
in reply to GROM Sep 10, 2011 9:32am

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.

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

GROM 09/19/2011 9:18am
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:27pm

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.

Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:32am
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:27pm

“ . . . 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.

thedeuce 11/01/2011 8:52am
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:21pm

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.

Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 1:11am
in reply to Inquisitor2 Sep 26, 2011 12:32am

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!

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?

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.

Spam Comment

Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:41am
in reply to solis93 Sep 08, 2011 6:32pm

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.

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.

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.

flcjinflorida 10/10/2011 12:03pm
in reply to theaton Apr 18, 2011 9:20am

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

RyanAnchors 09/18/2011 5:20pm
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:21pm

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.

Amazon 11/19/2011 5:00pm
in reply to GROM Sep 10, 2011 9:32am

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?

TheSmokingArgus 09/14/2011 6:23pm
in reply to dolamite74 Sep 13, 2011 2:15pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mo_Mom 01/24/2012 2:10pm
in reply to bingocimo Dec 01, 2011 7:14pm

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.

Inquisitor2 09/26/2011 12:51am
in reply to TheSmokingArgus Sep 14, 2011 6:27pm

“ . . . 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.


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