Right To Carry Reciprocity Act Passes

by J. Scott Rupp • November 17, 2011 • 49 comments

The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, HR 822, by a vote of 272-154. I took the opportunity to watch the debate on C-Span, and it was interesting to listen to the anti-gunners branding those who lawfully carry concealed as “dangerous” even as they made lame attempts to claim they supported the Second Amendment. (In case you missed it, running commentary on the debate and the vote were on Twitter: @handgunsmag)

The bill basically says that if you have a CCW permit in your home state, you can travel to another state that issues CCW permits and your permit will be valid. Arguments were split along pro-gun/anti-gun lines of course but also along the states’ rights/federal powers divide. Anti-gun Democrats, who found themselves on the unfamiliar ground of using the states’ rights arguments to bolster their case, offered several amendments in an attempt to either make the bill toothless or unworkable, but all failed.

Repeatedly throughout the afternoon the anti-gunners set their sights squarely on Florida, claiming that the Sunshine State’s CCW process is so lenient that convicted felons, spouse abusers, even terrorists can simply waltz in and get a carry permit. Okay, I’m no legal expert, but my perusal of the qualifications to get a permit in that state would seem to directly contradict what many of the representatives were saying. Oh, and let us not forget that under federal law you can’t buy or possess a gun if you’re a convicted felon or under indictment of a felony or buy a gun if you’re under a restraining order for domestic abuse and so forth.

The pro-gunners, particularly Trey Gowdy (R-SC), did an excellent job rebutting much of the BS the antis were dishing out. And a couple of them held up their own CCW permits as they spoke. Rep. Adam Kingzinger (R-IL) pointed out that his state was the only state in the nation that offered no way for a citizen to get a carry permit, noting that this draconian restriction hasn’t stopped people from being shot on the streets of Chicago every day. Maybe, he said, this bill will wake up his state and get it to finally allow concealed carry for its residents.

Since the Republicans have the numbers, the bill passed with only one amendment (one requiring the GAO to study how states can verify the CCWs issued by other states).

NRA-ILA posted the following on its site following the bill’s passage:

“This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.”

I was unable to find any companion bill in the Senate nor mention of such a bill, but any such legislation is going to have a much harder hill to climb being passed in that chamber. And, of course, it’s unknown what position President Obama will take on any right-to-carry legislation that might cross his desk.

In concealed carry • Tagged Concealed Carry, H.R. 822, National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, reciprocity

423949 ResponsesRight+To+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+Passes2011-11-17+00%3A34%3A04J.+Scott+Rupp

Majestic_One

Been long held nothing in the constitution gives feds authority to force states to recognize the laws of another. My guess it will be struck down by the supreme court if not by the Senate or Obama.

On November 17, 2011 at 2:00 am • Reply
- James
  
  Try going to Law School and then reading the Constitution. States recognize other State's driver's licenses, marriages. A conceal carry permit should be recognized under the full faith and credit clause.
  
  On November 17, 2011 at 4:30 am • Reply
  - Sandy
    
    I agree 100%. A permit to carry should be recognized just as you are carrying a license to drive a vehicle. If you stay in that state and establish residence then you are required to register your car and obtain a new license in that stare of residence. At that point, I believe you would be required to do the same with the gun. This should be common sense.
    
    On November 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm • Reply
- Tony Heaton
  
  How do you comment on the Constitution when It's obvious you have either never read it or didn't understand it? Article IV, Section 1.
  
  On November 17, 2011 at 7:37 pm • Reply
- matt
  
  you would be correct if refuring to just about anything else but sense the tenth amendment says "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." and sense the second amendment clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the feds do have the authority to inforce a national right to carry bill. the constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed so they have the right to tell the states that. its not an issue of states rights if its in the constitution. thats like saying in RI woman cant vote and to live in mass you need to be cathlic. librals revert to states rights when its convinient for them but ignore states rights when it comes to anything else.
  
  On November 25, 2011 at 12:49 am • Reply
  - Frankly
    
    "sense"… ?
    
    On December 14, 2011 at 12:23 am • Reply
K Shrader

Ironic that anti-gun legislatures would think that "felons, spouse abusers, even terrorists" would even want to give the government a way to identify and track them. No, not ironic, just plain ignert.

On November 17, 2011 at 2:46 am • Reply
Common Sense

If this is struck down because another state has to recognize it then my NC driving license should fall foul to the same nonsense!

The right to carry makes sense and will not have a negative impact!

On November 17, 2011 at 3:17 am • Reply
packeryman

Having lived in Vermont(a state, most of the those with ill conceived far right political ideology, think of Vermont as very liberal) they have the greatest gun laws(or non gun laws) in the country. If you believe in the Second Amendment and the right of an individual to carry, move to Vermont. There is never an issue with carrying concealed, open, in purse, in home, automobile etc. When asked about gun laws of other states, Vermonters reply is we don't need them , we have the second amendment They have one of the lowest crime rates in the US. The anal retentive politicians of the northern eastern states, Ill., CA, denying their citizens the right io carry, should be swept out in a wave. We need this law to open up carry in all states. This is another fallacy of states rights, How can you have 50 different state laws on carry restrictions and this creating the denial of some not to carry because of different qualifications. The states righter's are nuts. Get rid of the state laws and have a national carry with no registration. This is another fallacy of those wanting to proclaim state rights.Some would say this protects states rights, but all we have to do is look at history to know that we must have a central government that can override state rights for the good of the common(nation) Example: Slavery.

On November 17, 2011 at 3:23 am • Reply
- Dave Kanati Usti Raper
  
  Or Idaho. Castle Doctrine, open carry without a permit/license, conceal-carry with a license, no "waiting period" on purchasing firearms. Heck, there's a shooting range in the middle of the biggest city in the state!
  
  Also, the conceal-carry license is easy to get. Either take a class (which is fairly short), or go through hunters education. Either works.
  
  On November 17, 2011 at 3:53 pm • Reply
- Snowmanspanky
  
  You are so right packeryman. Why can't these other people see that Vermonts got it right. Some people are knocking them saying they are anti gun. That could not be further from the truth. Some body wrote they voted against HR 822 not thinking about why. They don't need a permit, so what do you do if you travel? Now they have to get permits just so they can travel with a firearm. More paper work more BS.
  
  On November 23, 2011 at 6:18 pm • Reply
ckerst

The federal government requires states to recognize all kinds of things, this is no different. I think it's laughable that some brand CCW holders as dangerous but are just fine with the average mope being able to take a 3000lb SUV out on the highway at 70mph. If you want to see dangerous just drive around Florida during tourist season.

On November 17, 2011 at 2:04 pm • Reply
thejaundicedmonocle

It's about time! The reason why things get as disjointed as they have is giving too much power to the states. The reason why we have cities like Chicago that blatantly violate our constitution is giving too much power to local government. It's long past due that they get a smack down!

On November 17, 2011 at 3:59 pm • Reply
Don Holmes

I think this should be under the 2nd ammendment, not the commerce clause.(article 1 sec,8) I don't see anything being bought or sold . please explain if I am wrong.

On November 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm • Reply
Bill Matthews

Praise God!! Now IL needs to get their heads screwed on straight and then we'd be good!!
I literally prayed that this would pass!!!! I think that's awesome!!

On November 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm • Reply
Edward

I agree it is about time that this has passed but it still needs to make it pass the senate. That is a big hurdle to jump/

On November 18, 2011 at 2:26 am • Reply
donmontalvo

I'm agnostic…but…there is a GOD!

Don Montalvo, TX

On November 18, 2011 at 5:13 am • Reply
Duncan

I think that this law is great and it will make it a lot easier for people with CCWs to move about in the country.

On November 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm • Reply
Dan

I'll get excited when Obumer signs it. Until then I'll just stay in Texas.

On November 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm • Reply
ramwest

Speaking of Vermont – I went to http://www.govtrack.us to see how congress voted. Every rep from Vermont voted against HR 822 ? HUH whats up w/that? I"m pretty sure it is because they think we don't need this legislation. They don't but the rest of us do.

On November 19, 2011 at 12:48 am • Reply
- Topsy
  
  Vermont is liberal country. Liberal means anti gun, anti freedom and pro OBAMA (One Big Mistake America). If your from Vermont, you need to vote them out, lock, stock, and barrel.
  
  On November 19, 2011 at 4:08 am • Reply
  - Snowmanspanky
    
    Topsy, I don't know how you worked out that Vermont is anti gun. You don't even need a permit to carry a gun in Vermont. The reason they voted against HR 822 was if it passes they have to start making people get permits or they will not be able to carry in any other state but their home state because they don't have a permit.
    
    On November 23, 2011 at 6:00 pm • Reply
- Snowmanspanky
  
  ramwest, Same thing I said to Topsy. You don't need a permit to carry in Vermont. They believe it is your God given right everyone does without a permit. They voted against HR822 because if it passes they have to have people in vermont get permits or they can't carry anywhere but their home state because they don't need a permit so the will not have one to show in another state.
  
  On November 23, 2011 at 6:07 pm • Reply
topsy

What can you do to see this is passed into law? Write to your Senator immediately. I live in VA so Warner and Webb can make a difference on whether this is passed and sent to OBAMA (ONE BIG MISTAKE AMERICA). Please write! Please also call them up and talk to their staff people. They will listen tot you and pass your message on to them. It could also help to write a letter to the editor to all local newspapers to help influence the public to support the law. They are read and can make a differnce.

On November 19, 2011 at 2:36 am • Reply
- Snowmanspanky
  
  Join the NRA. They have been sending me e mails to fill out and send to the Reps. from my home state of NC.
  
  On November 23, 2011 at 6:09 pm • Reply
shafski

The constitution, amendment 10 states that anything not specifically stated in the constitution is a states right. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As I read the constitution the states don't have a leg to stand on. I would like to see this argument go before the supreme court.

On November 20, 2011 at 3:26 am • Reply
- Snowmanspanky
  
  Obama has the Supreme Court stacked in his favor so I hope they don't get into it. It's a fundamental right. The Forefathers needed guns against the Crown.They wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from the goverment when it go's against the will of the people. That's why the first thing Hitler did was take guns away from the people.
  
  On November 22, 2011 at 1:26 am • Reply
Mr Breeze-46506

Indiana is fantastic Life time CCW but when I go to Chicago I Carry every time. I would rather be Judged by 12 then carried by 6

On November 20, 2011 at 10:38 pm • Reply
- Don, Nevada
  
  Amen to that..I'm with you going into Cali
  
  On November 21, 2011 at 3:37 am • Reply
Squiffy

I don't understand any of you to be honest! This whole concept of wanting to carry guns with you wherever you go is competely alien! Now, please don't jump down my throat! lol I'm British and we're a lot more strict on our laws regarding gun control. I actually have to write an essay about how you should be pro gun control in America and I'm finding it realy difficult! It seems none of you want that! Surely this is asking for trouble? Are you guys expecting to need a gun when you go out? Are you also prepared to use it?

On November 25, 2011 at 1:14 pm • Reply
- Guest
  
  Squiffy – Oh my gosh, are you seriously asking these questions? I'm honestly trying to be respectful to a non-American, but you MUST be new to this forum. So MANY things have been written here (and it seems everywhere else in these forums) to answer each and every one of your questions many times over! Use any of the forums from Guns and Ammo magazine and you'll find your answers. You'll even find the gun laws of Great Britain talked about in many of them.
  To answer one of your questions – no, we're not afraid to go out without our guns here. But we buy insurance here as well, not expecting to need it. Weren't the Boy Scouts initially formed in the UK? Are you familiar with their motto? I could go on and on, but since it's all been written numerous times already…
  Good luck on your paper. Please do your research with an open mind, OK?
  
  On November 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm • Reply
  - Squiffy
    
    Lol I'm sorry you're so shocked! Cultural difference Yeah I've found loads of stuff already but I think I'm not going to understand it until I go there! And actually speak to people and get their opinion. What I really want to know is are you prepared to use a gun? It's not the same as in films and don't you think that if you find yourself in a dangerous situation, wouldn't having a gun make it worse?
    
    On November 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm • Reply
    - Guest
      
      Squiffy – I've served 26 years in the military. I've had to use guns before and it's possible that I will again in the future. It is certainly not something that I look forward to, but I prefer to make that decision myself – whether I do or do not use one "in a dangerous situation." I'm also college educated and have a level head. I'm perfectly aware that my life would change as soon as I used a gun against another human as a civilian. I'm willing to take that chance – that I'll make the right decisions as I have in the past. We have several catchy phrases here in the US. You may consider them silly, but there's always a grain of truth in them.
      1) It is not the police's job to protect you from criminals. They can't predict crimes before they happen. Their job is to catch criminals once they've committed crimes and see that they're prosecuted.
      2) I carry a gun because carrying a cop would be too heavy.
      3) When seconds count, the nearest cop is only minutes away.
      Seriously, I'm not a "Cowboy" and I'm not blood-thirsty or paranoid. I just like to have the choice. Hope this helps.
      
      On November 26, 2011 at 2:28 am • Reply
      - Squiffy
        
        Thank you, yes that does help. From that point of view I do understand, you are trained and probably would be more reliable in that situation than many others. I guess it's herioc that you're willing to do what would be necessary, not many would react the same way. The only concern I have is about those who are not mature enough to appreciate firearms and how dangerous they can be. But thanks for answering! I will take you opinion ino account when writing this essay
        
        On November 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm •
      - Guest
        
        Squiffy – I too share your concerns about those that may not be mature enough to handle guns responsibly. It irritates me beyond belief when I see guns handled as toys… I have a collection of firearms. I store them responsibly (locked up when not in use) and use them for target shooting and demonstration only. My collection consists of older military weapons. I love these military arms for their historical significance. I own American, German, Japanese and yes – British arms that were used during WWII. I relish taking others out and letting them shoot these weapons – under careful supervision – just to experience how powerful they were and the damage they could inflict. In every instance, the people I take shooting come away with a newfound respect for firearms.
        
        On November 27, 2011 at 4:40 am •
- max
  
  Funny you are making a statement on a GUN website. Why are you even thinking about guns?
  
  On November 28, 2011 at 12:22 am • Reply
- varmonter
  
  Squiffy..I Feel for your situation.But we Americans Have had this idea culturally ingrained in us.
  Ever since we sent your ancestors paddling back to England.
  Same as everything in your country stops for Tea…It's cultural..
  I don't "expect" My house to burn down.
  but i have a couple of fire extinguishers around.And yes. They are loaded.
  
  On December 5, 2011 at 5:58 am • Reply
- Maurizio Fodera
  
  Go back to England! Hope you're never assaulted by a jerk with a weapon. Me on the other hand… I am prepared!
  
  On February 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm • Reply
- Todd
  
  It is a proven fact that crime rate doubled in England, Canada and the land down under when pistol ownership was forbidden. Criminals will always acquire guns illegally wake up America if guns are band to law abiding citizens crime will double here too, there are two many on the streets to police up.
  
  My wife wasn't a believer until she was assaulted in Atlanta when I was gone overseas on business, I don't believe it should be the wild west but if more people carried then these public attacks would be stopped if gunman new more people were armed.
  
  On March 1, 2012 at 2:26 am • Reply
BroncoBob

The way I see it, if the law makers would focus on the people who lawlesly use guns or bombs or other weapons to do there hanus acts.Instead of saying that it's just the gun that is bad,then we would'nt have to
be constantly anoyed by some nut case in congress, feeling that by inacting another stupid ass bill that if passed is going to be the salvation of the free world, they need to understand, that good people don't carry guns to kill people,we carry guns to keep from being killed.

On November 25, 2011 at 11:57 pm • Reply
Gary

It is about time that it is recognized and we have our second amendment still in tact. The "Dum-O-Crats," Like Obama, Holder, and let us not forget the architect of fast and furious who is protected and held in the highest esteem as she tries to bargain away our rights with the U N, "The Bitch Hillary!" In this day and age, if things are going down hill fast, who is going to protect you? Yourself? Or a police officer who might be five minutes away?! Sensible americans with a CCW license are not the Wylie Cyoties we are made out to be. With a lot of politicians, it comes down to control of their people and most of all, their vote catching capability! What more can I say?

On November 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm • Reply
James

Why oh why do we still keep seeing this?!
The model in the photo has her finger on the trigger of her pistol.
This is an important gun safety issue, and this picture sends out the wrong message.

On December 2, 2011 at 2:35 pm • Reply
- Gene
  
  may be that her finger is on the trigger because she has aquired a target and is ready to fire.
  
  On February 22, 2012 at 4:29 am • Reply
John Hare

See info on AB 2900. Better and simpler than 822. Check on GOA website.

On December 3, 2011 at 6:25 am • Reply
Col7

It's about time we really moved into the 21st Century, this Bill is long in coming and I pray it does pass both the Senate and the President's approval.

On December 4, 2011 at 11:18 pm • Reply
DONALD JOINER

NO PASS NO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS……………..

On December 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm • Reply
Jimmy Mullin

Forced integration of schools,abortion as a right,use of state national guards in foreign undeclared wars,Federal departments that dictate to states are all examples of the Feds telling states to do the will of the feds.The courts basically have said that the feds can enforce civil rights on states.If the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution is a right ( much more than invented rights by courts ),then no state can deny a US citizen's right to be armed.Massachusetts makes criminals out of people that would not even be law violators in most states.Massachusetts does not even respect ATF travel gidelines between states.The feds say to put your unloaded weapon in your car trunk,the ammo must be in another place then where the gun is.If,you travel,thru or to MA with a gun,adhering to the federal guideline and are somehow stopped for a vehicle search,you will go to jail for a YEAR.Though i once had a MA CCW and now have a TN HCP,if i was to take my gun with me to visit family,i risk prison.That means an old guy like me,never in trouble with the law,have to travel by car almost 900 miles with no protection.Is the 2nd amendment a right? If it is,states should not imprison people over excercising a right.

On December 19, 2011 at 9:31 am • Reply
Jimmy Mullin

Who shoot more American citizens,cops or CCW holders? For those who don't know the answer,it's cops.Police officers are allowed to travel nationwide with their guns.This is crazy if cops kill more citizens than CCW holders.Government in general is NOT anti-gun.They arm millions of their employees. ( did you know that the department of education has "agents" with class3 sawed off sized shotguns )For some reason they don't want their employers ( the taxpayers,citizens,voters ) to be armed.In general,if government wants to disarm their country's citizens,they intend to abuse those citizens. Perhaps not immediately,but one day.The same congressmen and senators who detest the armed citizen have no objection to voting huge "defense" budgets and arming their government "agents" like soldiers.The government that abhors civilian gun ownership has no problem sending troops to war or maintaining nuclear weapons.If they can have nukes,they should not begrudge me a 357 Magnum and a 5.56mm.

On December 19, 2011 at 9:45 am • Reply
Dawn

Heck, none of this legislation would be necessary if all the states recognized that the Constitution acknowledges that the right to keep and bear arms is an innate right and not to be "INFRINGED" on by government, be it the state, local, or the federal government. The only people who have the right to restrict the carry of weapons are individuals that own the land on which you are walking. Companies and Institutions that are open to the general public should also be barred from INFRINGEMENT of your innate right to keep and bear arms in most places. Establishments that sell mainly alcohol should be designated as private property, as most are such anyway. Then the owner can determine on premise gun policy for his property. Malls, box stores, restaurants, gas stations, public colleges, etc should abide by the Constitution like all the other ruling institutions in this country. Nothing in the Constitution gives government created entities rights that supersede the Constitutional innate rights of the individual.

Federal employees should also have the right to bear arms in transit to and from official business but not necessarily while on Federal business unless that business is law enforcement.

On February 1, 2012 at 2:13 am • Reply