- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
NRA Promotes National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act
For months we have been reporting on a critically important bill: H.R. 822—the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. This vital NRA-backed legislation, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
Thanks to much hard work and action taken by NRA and our members, H.R. 822 has now garnered 242 cosponsors in the U.S. House. On Tuesday, September 13, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the bill.
There is currently only one state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)
H.R. 822 would make a major step forward for gun owners' rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized.
Dozens of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.
H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries. The bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.
To read our fact sheet on H.R. 822, please click here. And remember to watch this alert for updates!
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I agree that no training
I agree that no training should be mandated by the Feds. That is a state provision. I also agree that the law could be used by the enemies of freedom to build on and regulate our freedoms away. However, it would be nice to be able to travel and not have to be concerned about being harassed in another state simply because I carry a weapon legally. The only problem is that we live in this modern time when we need permits to carry a weapon that should be free and clear to carry without any government interference. Maybe our children will be free of the crazy carry permit. It is just another tax.
I am an NRA member and
I am an NRA member and support their efforts to protect our 2A rights. They do a wonderful job toward these goals, but with respect to HR-822 I have to say I believe they are misguided. If 822 passes, it will allow the Federal Govt to dictate the Standards to which all 50 states must agree in order to be within compliance. Once this happens, the FEDS can tweak or nudge those standards and say that they have a NEW set of standards. They will have their collective foot in the door. I instead believe in ‘States Rights’. I don’t want to sound conspiratorial in my comments, but stranger things than this happen all the time, and I can’t believe that this is not part of the ‘end-game’ toward removing guns from personal ownership and/or severely restricting them. Which would make anyone who defied any restrictions a criminal. Reminds me of those individuals who defied the government by possessing gold coins after FDR in 1933 required everyone to turn it into paper currency. There were technically millions of criminals in our country. The same could happen with regards to firearms under 822 or its later tweaks. For this reason I do not support it. Follow this link for more info regarding the confiscation of gold. http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
It sure would have been nice
It sure would have been nice to get this legislation through sometime between 2002 and 2005, when it would have sailed through Congress and the then-President would have signed it into law.
1. read the constitution. i
1. read the constitution. i dont believe 2A states "...the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed - unless you havent paid for and passed an arbitrary training requirement litigated by ignorant bureaucrats without regard to your actual proficiency with firearms."
2. who gets to decide what the "minimum" requirement is?? according to the constitution, zero is the "maximum," and free states like Vermont arent going to usurp their constitutional carry to appease nazi states like california (which still has a higher gun crime rate). so who gets to decide the minimum in your system? I hope its the NRA because then it will rightfully be zero.
3. your whole argument is flawed on the premise that having no training requirement is "dangerous." im sorry, you are factually wrong. crime committed by CCW holders (almost non-existant anyway) is no greater in states with no training requirement than those with burdensome, expensive requirements. period. end of story. I live in and have a License To Carry Firearms (LTCF) from Pennsylvania with no mandated training, yet i bet my last dollar i am more proficient with guns, gun laws, and shooting than 90% of people in this country. why should i have to spend time and money taking a BS class?
Furthermore:
"About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year."
source - http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf
Police have EXTENSIVE training and still have a higher percentage of bad shoots than less trained citizens.
I support the Right-to-Carry
I support the Right-to-Carry Reciprocity law and e-mailed the author as such. However, some states require no firearms training to receive a concealed carry permit. That is dangerous. Why would a state such as California that has a minimum standard of training required to receive a CCW want reciprocity with a state that has no such requirement. This bill should also contain a requirement for at minimum standard of training for CCWs that states must meet or exceed to be recognized under a national reciprocity law. States' own CCW internal training requirements can exceed a national minimum standard but in order to be recognized as a reciprocity state, they must meet at least the minimum. A nationally recognized minimum training standard could be developed that each state could meet or exceed and all would be good with reciprocity. The NRA could be instrumental in promoting and overseeing that each state is certified to at least the minimum standard. Many states already exceed what would be a minimum standard so it would be a matter of getting the remaining states to pass internal laws that require at least the minimum recognized standard of training. Non-compliant states could have two years to meet the standard and then be recognized by compliant states. If they choose to not meet minimum training standards then CCWs from their state would not receive reciprocity. The NRA could set the training standard and the NRA or ATF could take the lead to review and certify the individual states' training requirements for purposes of reciprocity. The issue of minimum national training standards for purposes of reciprocity could be amended into this bill. The NRA needs to take the lead in moving toward a national minimum training standard and oversight of this program for recertification every five years, or so.