• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Dangers of HR 822? You decide

XD40-OD

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
154
Location
Central WI
No where in my original post do I ever say "I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go" That was McX.

Yes you are right: It was a long e mail and in my cut and paste I omitted the writer. Thanks for the note. I'll find the e mail and put the writer's name McX. Next time I'll double check my cut and pastes.

Self owned
 
Last edited:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
I found the e mail

I get e mails from this group from time to time. I usually read it and delete them. But this one I needed your inputs bec I didn't know what to make of his thoughts on this bill. His name is Dudely Brown from this e mail adress:Dudley.Brown@nationalgunrights.org.
 

Midwest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
305
Location
Boone County, KY
I posted two comments on another forum. I will will reprint them here (with my permission). Just keep in mind the second comment that I made was about a precedent for protection (exemption) from State Laws by the Feds in the early 1990's.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

First Comment

"With a Federal CCW Be careful what you ask for

We have to be concerned where this all will lead. Lets for a second call it a 'Federal Carry Permit'. With it you could carry open and concealed in all the States. So what if they put in the requirements that you have to have this permit for open carry. In some states, like Kentucky; it is possible to open carry right now without a permit.

So what if some laws were amended to make this 'permit' the only one that will be recognized and the state issued ones null and void. Lets say it happens. So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?

Keep in mind down the line they could just add more conditions to the carry permit say to suit non pro 2A states like NJ. Maybe a restriction on caliber, it has to be holstered, mandatory gun locks while carrying in certain areas (you could carry, but the gun has to be locked).


Since this will be a federal permit, I have to assume it will have the same rights and restrictions across the land. I would assume some things that we take for granted now in Pro 2A States now could get eroded with this scheme. There will have to be some accommodations made to satisfy less than Pro 2A States. One size fits all?

I am all for all people to be to carry and protect themselves in any state. But lets be careful, very careful that the proposed "Federal Carry Permit" just doesn't just end up being a "National Gun License" in disguise. In one fell swoop,once this is in place. The 'powers that be' could just ban open and concealed carry and require all gun owners to get this permit just to keep their firearms. Then later on raise the cost of the permit and have more conditions and restrictions connected to it."

________________________________________________________________________________________

Second Comment : Precedent

"There was a precedent, if one can call it that. It did not involve firearms, but it did involve a Federal Agency and States and licensed individuals. Before deleting this, please read on.

There are laws on the books in some states called 'scanner laws'. Licensed amateur Radio Operators whose mobile radios also received police radio transmissions would be at risk in getting their radios confiscated and fined and possibly face jail time if caught having any radio capable of receiving police radio transmissions.

A law was passed by the governing agency (The Federal Communications Commission) giving licensed amateur radio operators exemption from the law. PR Docket 91-36
http://qsl.net/w5htw/FCC_PAGE/fcc_page.html

This law did not give licensed amateurs the right to buy a scanner for their vehicles or to listen to police calls in states that prohibited it . But it did give them a legal right to have radios in their vehicles that were capable 'out of the box' of receiving police radio transmissions.

After the federal law was passed a number of states who had these 'scanner laws' on the books added the licensed amateur radio operator exemption to the scanner laws.

Even though radios and firearms are two very different subjects. There are similarities here.

Federal Government
Federal Agency
License Holders
Items affected by State Laws
Items that can be carried on a person or in a vehicle.
Exemption from State Law by the Federal Government"
________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments, Concerns ?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I think he's a scare mongering nutball, who is coming up with a bunch of hypothetical situations that could happen to any bill at any time before it becomes (or at least is passed by the Congress).

Like I said earlier, there are some 10th Amendment arguments that can be made against it. I don' t think they're as strong as some others do. But, this guy is just trying to scare people without any facts.

I get e mails from this group from time to time. I usually read it and delete them. But this one I needed your inputs bec I didn't know what to make of his thoughts on this bill. His name is Dudely Brown from this e mail adress:Dudley.Brown@nationalgunrights.org.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Can you please point to the text in this bill that creates a "Federal Carry Permit"? All this bill does is say that states that permit CC (shall issue, may issue), or that don't regulate CC, have to honor another state's CC permit, if it has been issued by the permit holder's own state, and the terms are subject to the laws of the state the permit holder is in. There is no "Federal Carry Permit" or any changes to state's right to regulate their own carry laws (other than reciprocity.)

It's analogous to states recognizing other states drivers licenses (although with a more contentious subject, that requires a little bit of pushing from the Feds.)

As far as your second point (about the police scanners), you have a point there, sometimes governments pass stupid laws. And, sometimes it takes a while to get them corrected. But, you're going to have to explain a little better how this point applies to the text of this bill.


I posted two comments on another forum. I will will reprint them here (with my permission). Just keep in mind the second comment that I made was about a precedent for protection (exemption) from State Laws by the Feds in the early 1990's.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

First Comment

"With a Federal CCW Be careful what you ask for

We have to be concerned where this all will lead. Lets for a second call it a 'Federal Carry Permit'. With it you could carry open and concealed in all the States. So what if they put in the requirements that you have to have this permit for open carry. In some states, like Kentucky; it is possible to open carry right now without a permit.

So what if some laws were amended to make this 'permit' the only one that will be recognized and the state issued ones null and void. Lets say it happens. So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?

Keep in mind down the line they could just add more conditions to the carry permit say to suit non pro 2A states like NJ. Maybe a restriction on caliber, it has to be holstered, mandatory gun locks while carrying in certain areas (you could carry, but the gun has to be locked).


Since this will be a federal permit, I have to assume it will have the same rights and restrictions across the land. I would assume some things that we take for granted now in Pro 2A States now could get eroded with this scheme. There will have to be some accommodations made to satisfy less than Pro 2A States. One size fits all?

I am all for all people to be to carry and protect themselves in any state. But lets be careful, very careful that the proposed "Federal Carry Permit" just doesn't just end up being a "National Gun License" in disguise. In one fell swoop,once this is in place. The 'powers that be' could just ban open and concealed carry and require all gun owners to get this permit just to keep their firearms. Then later on raise the cost of the permit and have more conditions and restrictions connected to it."

________________________________________________________________________________________

Second Comment : Precedent

"There was a precedent, if one can call it that. It did not involve firearms, but it did involve a Federal Agency and States and licensed individuals. Before deleting this, please read on.

There are laws on the books in some states called 'scanner laws'. Licensed amateur Radio Operators whose mobile radios also received police radio transmissions would be at risk in getting their radios confiscated and fined and possibly face jail time if caught having any radio capable of receiving police radio transmissions.

A law was passed by the governing agency (The Federal Communications Commission) giving licensed amateur radio operators exemption from the law. PR Docket 91-36
http://qsl.net/w5htw/FCC_PAGE/fcc_page.html

This law did not give licensed amateurs the right to buy a scanner for their vehicles or to listen to police calls in states that prohibited it . But it did give them a legal right to have radios in their vehicles that were capable 'out of the box' of receiving police radio transmissions.

After the federal law was passed a number of states who had these 'scanner laws' on the books added the licensed amateur radio operator exemption to the scanner laws.

Even though radios and firearms are two very different subjects. There are similarities here.

Federal Government
Federal Agency
License Holders
Items affected by State Laws
Items that can be carried on a person or in a vehicle.
Exemption from State Law by the Federal Government"
________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments, Concerns ?
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?

The bill specifically mentions only concealed carry, open carry would be left to the states. If the bill wanted to regulate open carry then the bill would have to state that.

Even though radios and firearms are two very different subjects. There are similarities here.

The exclusive power of the federal government to regulate radio transmitters and receivers has been created explicitly in law. The regulation of weapons is a power explicitly prohibited in the Constitution. Two very different situations.

HR 822 states that the federal government is empowered under the Second Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the commerce clause of the Constitution to essentially override any restrictions on the concealed carry of a firearm to those licensed in their state of residence.

The bill makes an explicit mention protecting permitless carry. So long as that clause remains the threat of a federal permit is empty. There are only two ways to opt out of this federal law if the state is not happy with it's provisions. The first one is to do like Illinois and DC does and have a total ban on concealed carry. The other is to do like Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming and allow for permitless carry.

Again, permitless carry is explicitly protected in the bill. The federal government can place whatever conditions or restrictions it wants on these permits but it will do nothing to those states that do not require papers to carry a concealed weapon. With such widespread support for the bill as it is there is no chance of any gun control amendments getting attached, the House just won't let it happen.

Even if some gun control provision was to sneak by the watchful eyes on this bill it would get a big fat bullseye slapped on it for court challenge under state's rights, Second Amendment, and due process infringements.

Text of the bill is here: (Just in case people have not yet read the bill.)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text
 

Inquisitor

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
10
Location
Kansas
Trojan Horse Emails are a False Flag Blitz by Anti-Gun Groups and Their Shills

I think the anti-gun establishment is very concerned that this Bill will finally pass both the House and Senate. I am seeing posts on a very large number of websites and forums suggesting that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse. If you Google it you will get 840 results. Surprisingly these posts all have unique similarities and they all have the same false and misleading statements. If you read them carefully, you will see that they all come from the same source. That source seems to be “The National Association for Gun Rights”, which has been called a scam online but now appears to also be a shill for the anti-gun groups. With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I believe that these Trojan Horse postings are a false flag blitz by the anti-gun groups as a ploy to get people to lobby against H.R. 822. Don't let them fool you! For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.
 

Inquisitor

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
10
Location
Kansas
HR 822 Text

Please read the bill before you buy into some of things being said on this forum. It is not that long!

HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

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.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(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.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State."

Does this get rid of the GFSZA issues for carrying in a state with a permit issued by another state?
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
Can you please point to the text in this bill that creates a "Federal Carry Permit"? All this bill does is say that states that permit CC (shall issue, may issue), or that don't regulate CC, have to honor another state's CC permit, if it has been issued by the permit holder's own state, and the terms are subject to the laws of the state the permit holder is in. There is no "Federal Carry Permit" or any changes to state's right to regulate their own carry laws (other than reciprocity.)

It's analogous to states recognizing other states drivers licenses (although with a more contentious subject, that requires a little bit of pushing from the Feds.)

As far as your second point (about the police scanners), you have a point there, sometimes governments pass stupid laws. And, sometimes it takes a while to get them corrected. But, you're going to have to explain a little better how this point applies to the text of this bill.

You only need a permit from your home state to carry in your home state. You can use any permit to carry in any other state.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
You only need a permit from your home state to carry in your home state. You can use any permit to carry in any other state.

You are right, I thought I had read that it was restricted to you home state. Thanks for the correction.
 

Inquisitor

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
10
Location
Kansas
GFSZA - Gun-Free School Zones Act

Reciprocity Agreements Between States Do Not Qualify as GFSZA Exception

Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit. Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits, just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA.

Since H.R. 822 deals with reciprocity, I don't think it solves the GFSZA problem. But, I am not an attorney.

H.R. 2613 was introduced to repeal the GFSZA - check it out but it hasn't gone anywhere yet.
 
Last edited:

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Reciprocity Agreements Between States Do Not Qualify as GFSZA Exception

That is the current opinion of the BATFE/DOJ. I suspect that opinion is likely to change in the future. That is not how the law is written, and not likely how it was intended. For now the current opinion of the BATFE stands effectively as law. The states are likely to interpret the law differently, that is respecting the intent of state law, and not charge one with a violation if one has a recognized permit. One would essentially have to be caught by a federal LEO to get charged. Since violation is (IIRC) a felony few will cross that line out of an abundance of caution.
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
Reciprocity Agreements Between States Do Not Qualify as GFSZA Exception

Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit. Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits, just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA.

Since H.R. 822 deals with reciprocity, I don't think it solves the GFSZA problem. But, I am not an attorney.

H.R. 2613 was introduced to repeal the GFSZA - check it out but it hasn't gone anywhere yet.

"...under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State "
wouldn't one of those conditions be that they are exempt from the federal GFSZA? I wouldn't want to be the test case, but I see where it is a possibility.
 

Inquisitor

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
10
Location
Kansas
My Thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry

“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the Federal Government OR the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. “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.” The RIGHT (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved to) the people.

My thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry:
1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”. These restrictions probably would not constitute “infringement”, however, the specific exclusions would be subject to SCOTUS review:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
3. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in May-Issue States as well as the prohibition for Concealed Carry in Illinois and Washington DC, would probably constitute an “infringement” and should be declared such by the SCOTUS.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

Eventually, I hope, SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: “By what definition of 'shall not be infringed' is regulation of how and where the 'right to keep and bear arms' not an infringement?”.

Below are the applicable sections of the US Constitution:

The United States Constitution
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
· · ·
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
[The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."]
The Amendments
AMENDMENT II - Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT X - Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
Top