National Reciprocity - It Begins

Al Norris said:

GAO study notwithstanding, let's take a hard look at this bill, in its current form. The operative text from section (b) of the bill (as sent to the Senate):

The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.​

Noting the underlined, let's look at the same text without that exception (the exception language goes to how the States allow its own citizens to be licensed and has no effect upon how the law will be handled with regards to non-residents):

The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations .... that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.​

What is not in this text, is the prior language authorizing a non-resident licensee to operate as if he held that States least restrictive license. As I already explained, what is not in the text is the prior findings that accept the right to carry in public for self defense is part of the core right, as expressed in Heller (all of that language was stricken in an amendment - as a substitution - on Nov. 10th, just before the bill passed out of committee). That language was crucial in the operation of the bill.

As it stands, should this bill pass the Senate and be signed into law, any State legislature may pass what could be called a "general license" with any number of restrictions as opposed to a "special license" with many less restrictions.

With this bill:

• States may enact levels of carry permits.
  • States may assign "visitor" carry to any of the levels of public carry enacted.
• The bill further entrenches the idea that public carry is a privilege.
  • Current court cases that deal with carry as a right will be harmed.
  • The bill provides the courts with a legislative "out" to find that carry is a privilege, not a right.
    1. The Illinois cases, Shepard and Moore will be rendered moot (right to carry outside the home).
    2. Benson will be rendered moot (restrictive licensing).
    3. Ezell may survive, but it will be much harder to win (ancillary rights).
    4. Enos will be rendered moot (MCDV).
    5. Peterson will be rendered moot (interstate travel).
    6. Peruta, Haynie, & Richards will not survive at the Circuit (AWB).
    7. Nordyke will be rendered moot (restricted places).
  • It will be many more years before any case may come to the Supreme Court.
• With the GAO study in place, Congress will centralize a registry of permit holders.
• At some point, the Federal Legislature will begin to "regulate" the manner of obtaining permits (direct interference with State regulations).

I could go on, explaining how this bill will effect each and every case we are watching (not just the few I gave as examples, above). In general, by stripping all of the original language from the bill, the legislature has implicitly said that the right to carry in public, is not a right at all, but a mere privilege that can be regulated to any extent, or denied altogether.

Those of you that are for this bill will not be phased in the least. You want what you want and you want it now. The hell with the consequences!

Bottom line. Should this bill become law, it will unravel both Heller and McDonald in the short term. Perhaps, in the long term as well.

Click to expand...

I don't see how any of those cases except Peterson are mooted. Those other carry cases mentioned are resident carry cases not subject to 822. The others deal with non-carry, also not subject to 822. Perhaps why the 2A/14A authority was removed was to keep those cases from being mooted-although I can't explain why.
As far as the least restrictive permits go, let's realize the only states that have restricted permits are the may-issues, and those are almost always during work/cash deposits,exc. Those states would have a hard time assigning all visitors with a "during cash deposits" only permit, or arbitrarily saying this person's resident permit allows carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol but this OOS permitee can't. Also look at the fuss made from some of the restrictive states right now. If they can simply relegate/nullify non-resident carry then they wouldn't be making a fuss.
The GOA study doesn't (as of now) allow for much more than statistics. Compiling databases on permit holders personal info would take another act of Congress, something they could potentially do later on with or without 822 as law. Also, the NRA is the one driving this thing. I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but one thing they've been dead set against is any form of registration. Hard to believe they'll all of a sudden allow for a backdoor form of a permit database. That's assuming it's not already there and we just don't know about it.

press1280 said:

I don't see how any of those cases except Peterson are mooted. Those other carry cases mentioned are resident carry cases not subject to 822. The others deal with non-carry, also not subject to 822. Perhaps why the 2A/14A authority was removed was to keep those cases from being mooted-although I can't explain why.
As far as the least restrictive permits go, let's realize the only states that have restricted permits are the may-issues, and those are almost always during work/cash deposits,exc. Those states would have a hard time assigning all visitors with a "during cash deposits" only permit, or arbitrarily saying this person's resident permit allows carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol but this OOS permitee can't. Also look at the fuss made from some of the restrictive states right now. If they can simply relegate/nullify non-resident carry then they wouldn't be making a fuss.
The GOA study doesn't (as of now) allow for much more than statistics. Compiling databases on permit holders personal info would take another act of Congress, something they could potentially do later on with or without 822 as law. Also, the NRA is the one driving this thing. I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but one thing they've been dead set against is any form of registration. Hard to believe they'll all of a sudden allow for a backdoor form of a permit database. That's assuming it's not already there and we just don't know about it.

Click to expand...

Personally I think Al is spot on.....the changes put us a pubic hair away from the trojan horse

Furthermore, have you considered for a moment that the NRA is quite possibly PUSHING for CONSOLIDATION of the issue to the Fed Level?

They have far more influence at the Federal level than the State level and a consolidation of laws would leave them in a position of greater influence power over gun owners

Face it folks, the NRA doesn't want to resolve the 2A problem....they want to perpetuate it.

What are the differences between HR 822 as introduced, and HR 822 as sent to the Senate? I have attached the two versions for your own comparison.

• Section 2 of the original contained the findings of the Congress that the right to carry was part and parcel of the second amendment. That the Congress had the authority under the 14th amendment to ensure all States that allowed their citizens to carry, via a permit, that they allowed all visitors to their State, the same right.
  
  That entire section was eliminated in the passed version.
  .
• Section 3 of the original bill added Section 926(D) to Title 18 Chapter 44 of the U.S.C. This is now Section 2 of the passed bill.
  .
  1. Sec. 926(D)(b) of the original bill mandated that visitors carrying into another State were bound by that States laws.
     
     That section was eliminated.
     .
  2. Sec. 926(D)(c) of the original bill, declared that those States that imposed restrictions on their licenses, must honor out of State permits in the least restrictive manner authorized by State law.
     
     That section was eliminated.
     .
  3. Sec. 926(D)(d) of the original included a provision that nothing in this law could be construed to alter or change in any manner the way a State handled its own licensing or permitting laws.
     
     That section was eliminated. As noted in my previous post, an exception was added to the new 926(D)(b) that would, on the surface, do the same thing. However, there is nothing in that exception that would prevent the Federal Government to change/mandate/require/substitute a Federal law for a State law. The language of the eliminated section would have absolutely prevented such interference.
  .
• Sec 2(c) of the original bill contained a severability clause.
  
  That section was eliminated.
  .
• A new Section 3 was added: GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES’ CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
  1. The GAO is to study each States non-resident carry laws as to its effectiveness in maintaining the public safety.
     • This "study" will come back as inconclusive, as no such study can be done (with 49 differing States) within the narrow time frame (see note "F," below).
  .
• A new Section 4 was added: GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIRE-ARMS PERMITS.
  1. The GAO is to study the effectiveness of local authorities to verify and validate out of State permits.
     • This "study" will come back in the negative, as it would take the States more than a year (again, see note "F," below) to compile a database that any other State could access.
  .
• Both of the above GAO reports are to be submitted to the Congress within one year.

Because the Congress eliminated the Findings section, the Courts can (and will) conclude that there is no right to carry in the public. If the Congress believed that such a right existed, they would have retained that provision. They did not.

Should one of the cases get to the Supreme Court, we know that the anti-gun Justices would hold just that. Justice Kennedy would side with the 4 anti-gun Justices, as I believe he is opposed to public carry. So... It is possible that a 5-4 decision could come out (dissenting: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). More probable would be a 6-3 decision (dissenting: Alito, Scalia and Thomas). My crystal ball says that it would be a 7-2 decision with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Regardless, that would be the end of the right to carry.

What I think you're saying is that because the GAO studies will be inconclusive that the courts will then say no right to carry in public? Well, right now the courts are pretty much saying just that. A SCOTUS decision is necessary to change that. I'm not seeing how SCOTUS will take any of this and all of a sudden declare public carry outside the scope of the 2A. They will ignore Nunn,Chandler, and dozens of other cases, along with the 40 plus states with shall-issue/constitutional carry in favor of a GAO study?
Also, as far as Kennedy goes he did seem to have an issue with CA's may-issue licensing as he signed on in Guillory v. County of Orange when he was in the 9th circuit. Personally I'm slightly more worried about Roberts. But I don't think either would rule any differently with or without this GAO study.

I'm thinking the 2A/14thA authority might have been pulled because it possibly would be used as a ceiling(and not a floor) in the courts, and further entrench the permit apparatus we have instead of the ultimate goal of permitless carry nationwide. That's just a guess on my part, I'm assuming it wasn't just to shorten the bill.

Al Norris said:

Regardless, that would be the end of the right to carry.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how HR822 would cause this and any of the other right to carry cases that are heading to SCOTUS wouldn't.

And even if they did, things would just go back to they way the were. NY and the other 5 or so anti-gun states would continue to restrict rights and the other 44 or so states would keep issuing CCW's just as they always have.

The more I read of the changes to the bill, the less I like it.

I think we can count on Maryland's Senators voting against it. (Or, if they did vote for it, then our worst fears of this legislation would probably be realized.).

Can we count on Reid not allowing it to come to a vote? I think Reid will kill the bill because Obama won't want to sign it.

I think that more gun groups coming out against the bill is needed. I don't like the looks of NRA's push on this. My gut says, "It's Kill Bill Time!"

Should MSI take a public position on the bill?

ezliving said:

The more I read of the changes to the bill, the less I like it.

I think we can count on Maryland's Senators voting against it. (Or, if they did vote for it, then our worst fears of this legislation would probably be realized.).

Can we count on Reid not allowing it to come to a vote? I think Reid will kill the bill because Obama won't want to sign it.

Click to expand...

The Anti's in the senate are doing their best to put a wrench in it.

Once this bill would go back to house, it wouldn't pass reconciliation.

press1280 said:

What I think you're saying is that because the GAO studies will be inconclusive that the courts will then say no right to carry in public?

Click to expand...

No. The first study will come back as inconclusive. The second study will come back as negative. Those studies will go to the Congress. It will then be the Congress that decides IF and How to fix any perceived problem.

On all the carry cases, the argument being made does not take the form of a right to carry a concealed weapon. That is the sole province of the opposition, as it mis-characterizes what the lawsuits have been saying.

The plain language of Heller says we have a right to carry, for self defense, in case of confrontation. Heller itself mentions neither concealed nor open, as it regards the right to carry. It gives its approval to prior State case law in forbidding concealed carry because open carry was available as an alternative means of exercising that right. That is regulation, as opposed to a complete ban.

What our cases are saying is that we have the right to carry. Period. If the State chooses to ban open carry but issues concealed carry (or in fact, any carry) licenses/permits, then it must do so on an equal basis and not at the arbitrary discretion of some official.

To some, this may be a subtle distinction, perhaps too subtle, but such distinctions are what win cases at the Circuit and SCOTUS levels. We don't really care what the district courts say. All of our cases are aimed at a higher authority.

If the bill had been left as it was, I would still be supporting it. Because when the Federal Legislature passes a bill that says, "this is the peoples right, so we are going to enforce that right," we win.

But here, the legislature has turned around and says that carry is not a right but a mere privilege, to be regulated howsoever it wants.

Should it pass and be signed into law, it will hurt us. It will make it that much harder to get the judiciary to agree that we have a right to carry, when even the Federal Legislature won't admit that such a right exists.

jpk1md said:

Welcome to the Dark Side Hopalong. .

Click to expand...

I can haz cookiez?

Al Norris said:

No. The first study will come back as inconclusive. The second study will come back as negative. Those studies will go to the Congress. It will then be the Congress that decides IF and How to fix any perceived problem.

On all the carry cases, the argument being made does not take the form of a right to carry a concealed weapon. That is the sole province of the opposition, as it mis-characterizes what the lawsuits have been saying.

The plain language of Heller says we have a right to carry, for self defense, in case of confrontation. Heller itself mentions neither concealed nor open, as it regards the right to carry. It gives its approval to prior State case law in forbidding concealed carry because open carry was available as an alternative means of exercising that right. That is regulation, as opposed to a complete ban.

What our cases are saying is that we have the right to carry. Period. If the State chooses to ban open carry but issues concealed carry (or in fact, any carry) licenses/permits, then it must do so on an equal basis and not at the arbitrary discretion of some official.

To some, this may be a subtle distinction, perhaps too subtle, but such distinctions are what win cases at the Circuit and SCOTUS levels. We don't really care what the district courts say. All of our cases are aimed at a higher authority.

If the bill had been left as it was, I would still be supporting it. Because when the Federal Legislature passes a bill that says, "this is the peoples right, so we are going to enforce that right," we win.

But here, the legislature has turned around and says that carry is not a right but a mere privilege, to be regulated howsoever it wants.

Should it pass and be signed into law, it will hurt us. It will make it that much harder to get the judiciary to agree that we have a right to carry, when even the Federal Legislature won't admit that such a right exists.

Click to expand...

How, by mere omission of the 2A/14A statement, has the Congress stated the right to carry isn't part of the 2A and just a mere privilege? While I think it's better to have it there and that it's a nice compliment to go with the current cases in the courts, I don't think that by not having it in that the courts will assume no public carry. It's a long stretch considering judicial precedence on the matter(the current "only in the home" cases notwithstanding) leans heavily toward public carry as part of the 2A.
Also, the matter will be before SCOTUS very soon and will be decided there and not by Congress, so I find it highly unlikely a GAO study will somehow unravel everything.

press1280 said:

How, by mere omission of the 2A/14A statement, has the Congress stated the right to carry isn't part of the 2A and just a mere privilege? While I think it's better to have it there and that it's a nice compliment to go with the current cases in the courts, I don't think that by not having it in that the courts will assume no public carry. It's a long stretch considering judicial precedence on the matter(the current "only in the home" cases notwithstanding) leans heavily toward public carry as part of the 2A.
Also, the matter will be before SCOTUS very soon and will be decided there and not by Congress, so I find it highly unlikely a GAO study will somehow unravel everything.

Click to expand...

I'd think it's because the authority on which this bill is based went from 'because it's an enumerated right of the people' to 'because it's within the power of the federal government to regulate' when the 2A/14A was dropped and only the Commerce Clause was left.

Al said:

Those of you that are for this bill will not be phased in the least.

Click to expand...

Just saying....

Al Norris said:

The plain language of Heller says we have a right to carry, for self defense, in case of confrontation. Heller itself mentions neither concealed nor open, as it regards the right to carry. It gives its approval to prior State case law in forbidding concealed carry because open carry was available as an alternative means of exercising that right. That is regulation, as opposed to a complete ban.

Click to expand...

Semi off topic, but with CA recently banning UOC we probably get another case to confirm this. I think its a good stepping stone.

Fodder4Thought said:

I'd think it's because the authority on which this bill is based went from 'because it's an enumerated right of the people' to 'because it's within the power of the federal government to regulate' when the 2A/14A was dropped and only the Commerce Clause was left.

Click to expand...

Bills always go through many rounds of changes. By putting it under the CC, I believe the purpose was to possibly keep it separated from any 2A court cases.

Originally Posted by Al
Those of you that are for this bill will not be phased in the least.

Just saying....

I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. The scenario you're pointing to seems quite farfetched, with power grabs at every single turn. I'm confident once carry becomes even more widespread that the permits themselves will eventually disappear, just like what has happened in AK,AZ, and WY.

press1280 said:

I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. The scenario you're pointing to seems quite farfetched, with power grabs at every single turn. I'm confident once carry becomes even more widespread that the permits themselves will eventually disappear, just like what has happened in AK,AZ, and WY.

Click to expand...

Since when have we NOT seen massive power grabs from the fed gov?

Every piece of regulation that comes out of congress is a power grab.

As for Const Carry....its an uphill battle as MANY states see a loss in revenue associated with elim of a fee based permit.....and now the Fed Gov will want a slice of the pie.

Bad Bill

No Const Justification.

Expands Fed Gov

Kill The Bill

Fodder4Thought said:

I'd think it's because the authority on which this bill is based went from 'because it's an enumerated right of the people' to 'because it's within the power of the federal government to regulate' when the 2A/14A was dropped and only the Commerce Clause was left.

Click to expand...

Domestic Enemies do not believe in enumerated rights.

press1280 said:

How, by mere omission of the 2A/14A statement, has the Congress stated the right to carry isn't part of the 2A and just a mere privilege? While I think it's better to have it there and that it's a nice compliment to go with the current cases in the courts, I don't think that by not having it in that the courts will assume no public carry.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Even if they did, one of these CCW cases will make it to SCOTUS where they will either rule "bear" means carry or it doesn't. HR822 will not change the outcome of any of those cases.

I may be way off base here, but didnt congress recognize carry with the national parks law. I mean the law is completely about carrying in national parks and they said it was ok to do so.... please correct me if I am wrong.