U. S. House of Representatives Adopts Right- to- Carry Reciprocity—
All Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated!
On Wednesday, Nov. 16, the ongoing effort to fully vindicate the fundamental, individual right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense took a major step forward with House passage of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.” The bill, sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), which has 245 cosponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.
Several amendments were offered to undermine the bill’s protections. Every one of these amendments was soundly defeated by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and included:
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee provided crucial support to H.R. 822’s progress over the last several months, opened debate on the bill by describing in plain terms what it does. “This legislation requires states that currently allow people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other states’ valid concealed carry permits, much like states recognize driver’s licenses issued by other states,” Rep. Smith said. Anticipating the claim that H.R. 822 would override state carry laws—a claim that would be made over and over by House members opposed to the bill—Smith added, “The bill recognizes the right of states to determine eligibility requirements for their own residents [and] laws and regulations regarding how, when, and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident will apply equally to a nonresident.” Rep. Smith concluded his opening remarks by expressing the central motive behind the bill, saying that the “fundamental right to bear arms . . . should not be constrained by state boundary lines.”
As the author of the bill, Rep. Stearns expanded upon Chairman Smith’s arguments, saying “[I]t’s long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self-defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country. The right—the simple right—to defend yourself and your loved ones from a criminal is fundamental. And it's not extinguished when you simply cross a state border. . . . . [U]nder this legislation, lawfully issued carry permits will be recognized in all states that also issue carry permits. There are now 49 states that issue these permits. Most of these states also recognize permits issued from at least some other states, while some states recognize all valid permits issued by any state. But herein, simply, lies the problem. The non-uniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from state to state. While preserving the power of the states to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this legislation…will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel this wonderful country of ours.”
Rep. Stearns also put to rest several self-serving claims recently made by a small number of groups which claim to support the Second Amendment, but never seem to find a viable pro-Second Amendment bill they can support. These groups regularly oppose important pro-gun reform legislation, either complaining that it does not achieve all of gun owners’ goals in a single stroke, or expressing a paranoid fear that the legislation contains a hidden, insidious mechanism that will lead to the destruction of our right to keep and bear arms.
“This bill does not set up a federal carry permit system or establish any federal regulations of concealed-carry permits,” Rep. Stearns said. “That power remains with the states. Additionally, this legislation does not include any new federal gun laws, nor does it call for additional federal regulation of gun ownership. In fact, it does not allow for new federal regulation, for it amends the part of the Gun Control Act that allows only such regulation as is necessary, and in this case none.”
Some of the other House members speaking in favor were Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), John Kline (R-Minn.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), and Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), each of whom reiterated that H.R. 822 does not establish a national licensing scheme or federal carry permit system, or any other federal regulation relating to carry permits or gun ownership.
Since the House debate, some of the same critics have focused their complaints on an amendment by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) that would require a study of law enforcement officials’ ability to check the validity of out-of-state permits. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. It is important to note that any member of Congress can request a General Accounting Office study of any issue at any time, with or without legislation. More importantly, this study will have no effect on the provisions of H.R. 822. Certainly it wouldn't force the states to use "biometric identifiers" on permits, an idea that so far exists only in the minds of these naysayers.
Special thanks also go to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who rose time and again to defend H.R. 822 against the anti-gun amendments its opponents put forward. Additional thanks go to Reps. Steve Austria (R-Ohio); Howard Coble (R-N.C.); Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.); Jason Altmire (R-Penn.); Dan Boren (D-Okla.); Mike Ross (D-Ark.); Trent Franks (R-Ariz.); Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.); Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.); Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.); Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.); Candice Miller (R-Mich.); Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.); and Don Young (R-Alaska) for speaking in support of H.R. 822 during the debate, and to Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) for managing the Rule which provided for consideration of the bill.
This critical legislation now moves to the Senate. Please contact your Senators and urge them to bring H.R. 822 up for a vote at the earliest possible opportunity!
Disclaimer: Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.