The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

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.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.


A step in the right direction...be interesting to watch the final outcome of this one.

Cheers, Vince

If only we got that law passed in Australia. Well, at least the right to own handguns for other then target shooting would be good too.

Exactly mate...can't agree more.

Cheers, Vince

Its a start but I think even if it passes the senate, Obama will veto it as this will show his true colors on where he stands with the 2nd amendment. There are quite a few things in the bill that I think is wrong. HR 2900 is another bill that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.

GOA takes a different stance on this one and IIRC supports HR2900 instead. The talking points are that this gives the govt. more power under the commerce clause that it really doesn't have and will allow it to start regulating state permit policies like they did interstates etc. More backdoor restrictions with the blessing of the NRA.

I tend to agree, it would be lifting the tent wall for the camel's nose...

A quote from Chris Woodard;

HR 822 is yet another attempt at the continued abuse of the Commerce Clause. As such, if HR 822 were to become law, it is open to challenge on Constitutional grounds by the several states (CA), and these states have a good chance of winning in the Supreme Court. Consequently, I don’t believe HR 822 would remain on the books for very long.

HR 2900 is completely different in that the Constitutional Authority cited for this bill is the 2nd Amendment. Not only does it have the correct citation, but is also a much simpler and stronger bill. Of course, if the several states challenge HR 2900, the chances of the challenge being a success are almost non existent, mainly because of the correct citation.

HR 2900 has the potential to severely rock ALL federal and state firearm laws.


Suz

I've been thinking for awhile now before adding my two cents to this.

But, I cannot think of a single thing that our federal goones have gotten involved in that has resulted in any type of additional freedom, economic savings, or any type of improvement of any kind.

So I bow to those of you who think this is a good idea and hope;
1. It does not pass the senate.
2. Dumb ass vetoes it.
3. I am wrong and this is our government doing what is best for all the people ---sorry had to get back up off the floor on number 3. We already have a national right to carry law it is called the second amendment.

If it does pass the senate and BO does not veto it then I think we will all regret it.

My humble opinion, glad I don't own any guns for them to come and get.

There is NO WAY we want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT involved in concealed carry. Remember...What the GOV gives the GOV can take away. That means if the government gives us [what we already have in the 2nd amendment] it can take away [completely]...!!!

The NRA is wrong again...

NRA's been going down hill for awhile now faster since Heston died. Now just a bunch of politicos.

Glad I'm a member but don't entirely trust their judgement anymore.

I am also a member (for more years then I wish to mention) and I have doubts as to how long I will continue. The NRA is slowly becoming a minion of the left wing.

The fire in their gut to fight for our right under the 2nd amendment seems to be slowly dying. The fuel (Heston) is no longer there.

USCCA(united states concealed carry association)says;this is a bad bill,and that now the gov to impose new regs-like biometric screening and more!I used to trust the nra-but they seem to be like so many other political minded organizations nowadays,always have their "hand out"trying to reach into our pockets!

Yup I agree, the NRA has been going down hill for awhile now, seems like its all for political advantage rather than the peoples welfare. I went back and read the HR 822 bill and one of the things is that the state of Vermont, which never needed a permit to buy or carry concealed will have to do so if HR 822 passes. Also in the wording is the GAO study of making sure the states can keep track of permits??. I believe the states can keep better track than the feds.

One of the biggest things I hate is those damn people that lobby for corporations, tree hugging groups and ect. It seems these sob's can change our elected rep's mind of what the people want with the promise of this and that.

I just fired of 2 e-mails to my senators telling them to vote down on the HR 822 bill.

Isn't it axiomatic that in those states where your need to protect yourself is the strongest, you are restricted the most in doing so. To be honest I don't believe any government has the right to regulate your ability to defend yourself, in my mind this is just an effort to prevent them from prosecuting you for exercising your God given right to self protection.
Don

You bring up a good point BB, I believe the answer is already in the Constitution.

"Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution says, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceeings of every other State:.... "

Now my drivers license is recognized in every state, I don't have to get another license when travelling through another state.

Do people have to get married again if they travel or move to another state? Nope

The above 2 examples are records that we have a valid license and are married.

Now my ccw permit is also a record, and as far as I'm concerned it should be honored in all states under Article IV of the US Constitution.

Ominvision1

Yes I agree and with BB too, but by virtue of the 2nd Amendment not a new law using the questionable Commerce Clause that the Feds trot out when they want more control.

A couple thoughts from men I admire and who were much brighter than I.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams


"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right"

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson