The myths and facts of National Reciprocity Bill HR 822

[Acujeff]

Anti-Gun Attacks on National Right-to-Carry Bill Continue
Friday, September 30, 2011


H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" has recently come under attack from some expected and unexpected quarters. The usual culprits-- i.e., the anti-gun media, like the New York Times and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign; and New York City Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns--are a given. Regrettably, though, even some so-called "pro-gun" folks are attacking this critically important bill.

H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. Read the NRA fact sheet to get the facts. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7117

__________________
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA's monthly magazine
http://www.nramemberservices.org

Subscribe NRA-ILA legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:
https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx

 

[Climbnsink]

First to call garbage. Stick that bill where the sun don't shine.

 

[scubadive.ri]

If you are going make a statement like that a least back it up with your reasoning. Otherwise people might think that you are a TROLL.

 

[strangenh]

Ok, let's just boil this down.

1) The bill at present offers no offense to even the residents of the most reasonable license states (e.g., NH) or to constitutional carry states (e.g., AZ). It certainly seems that it has no anti-gun effect.

2) The bill's legitimacy is based on the current, extended reading of the Commerce Clause. If Congress has the power to order the states to recognize licenses from other states for guns carried in commerce, then it can also flip and place limits or restrictions on which of those licenses would be recognized, killing current reciprocity agreements.

It is a tempting bill, and a dangerous dance.

 

[Bill Nance]

Go ahead and pass it. It won't pass the Senate, you can bank on that. It will get vetoed. You can also bank on that.

But even if it DID pass and get signed, it would be stricken down by the courts just like the Brady law. what part of the tenth amendment do these people not grasp? Oh, that's right, all of it.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

Go ahead and pass it. It won't pass the Senate, you can bank on that. It will get vetoed. You can also bank on that.

But even if it DID pass and get signed, it would be stricken down by the courts just like the Brady law. what part of the tenth amendment do these people not grasp? Oh, that's right, all of it.

I don't know. The Thune Amendment almost passed the Senate (58 voted yes) when it had a bigger Democratic majority.

 

[JimB]

whats wrong with it, those against, please provide more info on why

you think it should not pass.... give us some facts.....

JimB

 

[TWtommers]

The only part the federal government should play in national carry is the supreme court ruling that CCW is protected by 2A. Outside of that, it's .gov over-reach at best.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Go ahead and pass it. It won't pass the Senate, you can bank on that. It will get vetoed. You can also bank on that.

But even if it DID pass and get signed, it would be stricken down by the courts just like the Brady law. what part of the tenth amendment do these people not grasp? Oh, that's right, all of it.

I dont think the courts will strike it down they didnt strike down the AWB.

 

[Mike-Mike]

whats wrong with it, those against, please provide more info on why

you think it should not pass.... give us some facts.....

JimB

We need to delete laws not create new ones.

If the Fed-Gov has their hand in firearms licensing and reciprocity. I would bet that they will also Impose the carry restrictions of the strictest state. For instance. No carry in churches, restaurants, municipal buildings, anywhere that has a no guns sign, buses, trains. you name it.

 

[daltrey99]

I think all licenses should be recognized just like a drivers license. Actually we shouldnt need a license at all but, it is already in effect in most states.

 

[groundscrapers]

I think it all depends on perspective... If I lived in NYC and wanted a gun I would be all over this but if I was from AZ I would be against it. I see the potential for further .gov intervention and regulation of such a law so I am all set with this one....

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

If you are going make a statement like that a least back it up with your reasoning. Otherwise people might think that you are a TROLL.

What the Feds giveth, they will taketh away. Second, we need less government influence and less laws, not more. Allowing this, we are justifying Restrictions on our natural rights. This would be just another way for the government to control something they should not be.

 

[Dench]

I don't have any problem with that bill.

 

[ohms]

Requiring a gun "license" is a joke, any law built on this principal should be rejected.

Let the SCOTUS clean up the mess made by "most states".

It is IMO a silly idea to negotiate our rights away with gun grabbers. Especially when recent decisions have favored 2A supporters.

I think all licenses should be recognized just like a drivers license. Actually we shouldnt need a license at all but, it is already in effect in most states.

 

[OfficerObie59]

One can certainly make an argument about this bill being a bad idea as a matter of policy, or the likely difficulties of passage--I can't argue with that.

But I think any contention that it violates the Constitution or is outside of the scope of Congressional power is wrong. Here's why:

Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, in addition to being the bastard child of Bill of Rights incorporation against the states, also has the function of protecting states rights against infringements upon the rights of citizens of The United States--i.e., citizens of their state in addition to those of other states as well. And since the 2nd Amendment was ruled to be an individual right in Heller, when you travel to another state and loose this liberty because that state (think NY, NJ, CA) is highly unlikely to issue a non-res permit, that action is violative of those rights.

With that, you then move to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the right to enforce the P&I clause by "appropriate legislation".

Seems appropriate enforcment to me to pass a National Recipocity bill the restricts one state from violating the Privilges and Immunities of the 2nd Amendment by forcing them to disarm when they reach that state's border.

what part of the tenth amendment do these people not grasp? Oh, that's right, all of it.

Amendment X to the United States Constitution

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.

As for the 10th Amendment concerns, this matter has been delegated to the United States via Article 5's enforcement clause. Congress has the power to force states from infringing upon citizens' P&I, specifically those outlined in the 2nd Amendment.

I too had long held the opinion that a national reciprocity bill violated state sovreignty, but I consider the argument above a principled argument to the contrary, particularly when you consider a major reason for the P&I clause was specifically to prevent states from disarming blacks during reconstruction. There is an orginalist foundation for the P&I clause to protect states from disarming citizens, whether or not they're citizens of those states. While two years ago, this would have been simple Constitutional theory, Justice Thomas' McDonald concurrence makes it a realistic possibility.

For more on this theory, see this podcast: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/state-reciprocity-second-amendment

 

[strangenh]

Obie, I think you should have another look at the bill. It clearly invokes Congress's Commerce powers, not the P&I clause.

 

[atilla]

H.R. 822 - G.T.F.O.

said it before and i'll say it again now: the fed giveth and the fed taketh away.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Obie, I think you should have another look at the bill. It clearly invokes Congress's Commerce powers, not the P&I clause.

EDIT: I did take another look at the bill, perhaps you may want to. See the Findings under Section 2, Paragraphs 3 and 9 -- the findings, in addition to referencing the Commerce power, also reference P&I and the power of Congress to pass legislation of violations thereof.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

...

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.


(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

Whatever the case, Congressional findings aren't binding upon Courts anyways. While I'm certainly no fan of the post New Deal use of the Commerce Power, I would assume they're throwing everything at the wall on this one, and that note about commerce in (8) simply looks like an unprincipled afterthought. As I see it the bulk of the bill actually relies on my argument.

Hell, according to line 3, you could even argue that Congress has the power to pass this legislation under the Alito opinion granting incorpoation via (urrrgggg) substantive due process.

 

[TWtommers]

Obie, I am admittedly not fully clear on the the Heller and McDonald cases. That said, I was under the impressing that the result of those cases was definitely to clarify that 2a is an individual right but did not call out concealed carry as part of 2a.

If my understanding is true, the 14th still doesn't cover this law because CCW is not a recognized right. The law says 'Congress Recognizes' CCW as a right but that's just language in a bill, not a legal precedent, right?

 

[Bob P]

whats wrong with it, those against, please provide more info on why

you think it should not pass.... give us some facts.....

JimB

It sets precedent that the Federal Gvt can tell the States how to regulate guns within their borders. I.e. its saying fed law superceeds state law w/in those state borders. So if the Fed decides that the MA model for carry laws is the best they could decide to impose that in the future.

Again this is the Fed getting a foot in the door by offering something that looks great now but has some scary fine print.

 

[BOBKATT]

I don't understand why people aren't pressing bills through their own state legislature that would require their states to have reciprocity with the rest of the Union. That would be the Constitutional way to do it. And, we're always concerned about the sanctity of the Constitutional. Right?

I suppose that I thought we all were, unless it is a case like this where granting powers to the feds that the Constitution does not provide for seems to be in our favor. However, that is a dangerous road. And, it is one that I would rather not go down.

We can't on one hand hold that the BOR is a valid and binding document, and on the other hand try to give the feds powers that they aren't given, in a manner that is unconstitutional.

Progressives do that. We don't.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Obie, I am admittedly not fully clear on the the Heller and McDonald cases. That said, I was under the impressing that the result of those cases was definitely to clarify that 2a is an individual right but did not call out concealed carry as part of 2a.

If my understanding is true, the 14th still doesn't cover this law because CCW is not a recognized right. The law says 'Congress Recognizes' CCW as a right but that's just language in a bill, not a legal precedent, right?

Correct. And that's one of the weak points of my argument. But lets remember if CCW were a RECOGNIZED right via those cases we likely wouldn't be having this debate because its likely reciprocity would have been forced by the courts.

From a tactical standpoint, it makes otherwise pro-CCW proponents have to argue in theory that CCW isn't a fundamental right. Nonetheless, while Congressional findings arent binding, the fact the legislative body would have stated CCW is a fundamental right would likely be given great deference by the courts.

 

[strangenh]

EDIT: I did take another look at the bill, perhaps you may want to. See the Findings under Section 2, Paragraphs 3 and 9 -- the findings, in addition to referencing the Commerce power, also reference P&I and the power of Congress to pass legislation of violations thereof.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

Whatever the case, Congressional findings aren't binding upon Courts anyways. While I'm certainly no fan of the post New Deal use of the Commerce Power, I would assume they're throwing everything at the wall on this one, and that note about commerce in (8) simply looks like an unprincipled afterthought. As I see it the bulk of the bill actually relies on my argument.

Hell, according to line 3, you could even argue that Congress has the power to pass this legislation under the Alito opinion granting incorpoation via (urrrgggg) substantive due process.

Those decisions explicitly discarded the PorI clause. Congress is invoking 1) the incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th, but then 2) tying their power of enforcement to interstate commerce. It's the second half I find troubling.

 

[pdm]

P or I is a dead letter at SCOTUS since the Slaughterhouse cases (1873). Only in McDonald did Justice Thomas support a PorI decision. I don't think this bill will go anywhere. It's going to have to be a slog through the courts to get a SCOTUS ruling before we get national recognition of the right to carry.

 

[OfficerObie59]

P or I is a dead letter at SCOTUS since the Slaughterhouse cases (1873). Only in McDonald did Justice Thomas support a PorI decision.

Because of Justice Thomas' PorI concurrence, it WAS a dead letter.

If it makes you more comfortable, Congress still has the power to enact legislation that enforces any of the rights guarnteed by the 14th Amendment, to include SDP which was Alito's foundation for incorporation, via Amd 14, s. 5

 

[appraiser]

If the NRA is endorsing it, there is a big red flag to me. Sorry the NRA has negotiated away most of our 2A rights by way of compromise. When JPFO endorses the bill let me know, but even then I am not a supporter of legislation the brings the Feds into the problem under the guise of solving it.

Licensing is a states rights issue, the Heller decision laid out what is constitutional and what is not, that is all the Fed involvement I want or need. The issue is for citizens to insist on changes at the state level that ensure a right to keep and bear firearms, especially CCW, and to insist that there be reciprocity negotiated with other states.

Name me one issue that the Feds have gotten involved with that made a situation better.

 

[pdm]

Because of Justice Thomas' PorI concurrence, it WAS a dead letter.

If it makes you more comfortable, Congress still has the power to enact legislation that enforces any of the rights guarnteed by the 14th Amendment, to include SDP which was Alito's foundation for incorporation, via Amd 14, s. 5

I seriously doubt that, in our lifetimes, PorI will be anything but a dead letter. Everyone other than Thomas and a couple of lawyers (I think Gura is one) has a hard on for SDP. Because that way it's so much easier to justify restricting people. As long as you give the people something resembling "due process" you can turn them into wageslaves. Real freedom scares a lot of people, unfortunately.

 

[Patriot0717]

I know we have a law for something on guns. I think its an amendment or 2a.....whatever. I Read the bill and it sounds good. Geez, what could possibly go wrong?

EditROID

 

[OfficerObie59]

I seriously doubt that, in our lifetimes, PorI will be anything but a dead letter. Everyone other than Thomas and a couple of lawyers (I think Gura is one) has a hard on for SDP. Because that way it's so much easier to justify restricting people. As long as you give the people something resembling "due process" you can turn them into wageslaves. Real freedom scares a lot of people, unfortunately.

Read Scalia's concurrence. While he voted with the SDP plurality, his take can hardly be described having a hard on for it.

Second, Roberts and Alito are stare decisis gurus. They don't look to whether SDP was so much the right thing to do so much as they look to how much it's been used in the past, perpetuating the law no matter how incorrect or unorginlistic it might be.