National Reciprocity passed the house 271/153/9

[Mitchell, Esq.]

H.Res.463 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 822) 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 passed the House of Representatives.

FOR 271
AGAINST 153
ABSTENTION 9

Text of the bill:

HR 822

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

1
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Now it has to go to the Senate, then...

[jetfire]

Too bad it won't pass the Senate.

[Shellback]

Summary of amendments here.

[tmoore912]

None of those amendments were attached to the Bill. It was passed by the House, and is now onto the Senate. I feel the Senate will probably have a vote on it, because Harry Reid is owned by the NRA. It will be interesting to see if the Senate tries to attach a bunch of crap to it, like some in the House tried to do. I like this Bill. It's telling the States that they can't take away someone's inalienable rights they are born with just because they have crossed a state line. It's not perfect, but it can work for now. If it passes and gets signed into law, it will allow me to finally be able to cross the Savannah River and still be able to protect myself in South Carolina. Up until now, I avoid SC at all cost.

[nwhpfan]

Too bad there is a permit to carry a handgun. Wish the individuals states would have done the right thing long ago.

[theblacknight]

Dose this mean states like Vermont that dont require one, your DL is your permit in other states?

[TheLaw]

I think the chances of it ever passing the Senate are very low. Sadly. Living in GA, I can carry in many of the places I travel on a regular basis with the main exception being SC. I'm usually there several times a year on business and drive through SC to go to NC several times a year as well.

[jetfire]

Dose this mean states like Vermont that dont require one, your DL is your permit in other states?

Negative. You actually must have a permit to take advantage of this law.

[GooberTim]

Negative. You actually must have a permit to take advantage of this law.

Which means the good people of Vermont could implore their state legislature to adopt a simple and non-burdensome licensing mechanism for those residents who wish to carry in another state, or for those who carry within the 1000' "gun free" school zone. Also, it would appear that a Vermont resident may obtain a non-resident license from another state, allowing them to carry outside their home state.

Not sure how long non-resident licenses would be available after the passage of the bill (assuming the Senate passes and BHO signs it), but I see no reason why Vermont wouldn't remedy the needs of it's residents.

[TGS]

Which means the good people of Vermont could implore their state legislature to adopt a simple and non-burdensome licensing mechanism for those residents who wish to carry in another state, or for those who carry within the 1000' "gun free" school zone. Also, it would appear that a Vermont resident may obtain a non-resident license from another state, allowing them to carry outside their home state.

Not sure how long non-resident licenses would be available after the passage of the bill (assuming the Senate passes and BHO signs it), but I see no reason why Vermont wouldn't remedy the needs of it's residents.

I read it as you must have a resident permit in order for it to be applicable. Meaning the Florida non-resident permit I hold would not allow me to carry everywhere, and would not be valid in NJ which has no realistic permit(of course, I imagine that if this went into effect the state of NJ would be facing more lawsuits for realistic and reasonable carry permits). Whereas, a PA resident could carry in NJ if he/she has a PA license.

Whoever thought Vermont's awesome 2A stance could come back to bite them in the ass? Their constitution even states that the right to bear arms is for defense against government intrusion....how cool is that? No interpretations needed.

In any case, I'm sure NJ would somehow not let this fly. NJ even made a ruling that HR218 LEOSA only applies to full-time LEO's. A part-time sheriffs deputy in NJ had death threats made against him by people he arrested on duty, but he can't carry off-duty and a judge denied him a carry permit. sigh.....I'm sure there's some way NJ would fuck it up.