Bill 822

[gogodawgs]

So does that mean my oregon concealed would work in like kansas or other states that dont honor oregon?

Yes if you are an Oregon resident.

 

[FMCDH]

Well, now for the Senate.

I don't think it has a snowballs chance in....well you know the rest....but if it makes it through the senate without being amended to death, I think Obama will sign it.


Edited to Add: Inslee voted against it by the way. Who saw that coming?

 

[Justman1020]

Forcing oregon to take permits BUWAHAHAHHAHAHA I love it.

 

[BigDave]

Well, now for the Senate.

I don't think it has a snowballs chance in....well you know the rest....but if it makes it through the senate without being amended to death, I think Obama will sign it.


Edited to Add: Inslee voted against it by the way. Who saw that coming?

Did we not feel this about the legal carry in National Parks just recently, sure it was attached to the credit card bill.
I would not count it down and out but though it does have a steep hill to climb in the senate.

 

[FMCDH]

Did we not feel this about the legal carry in National Parks just recently, sure it was attached to the credit card bill.
I would not count it down and out but though it does have a steep hill to climb in the senate.

It passed separate from the credit card bill if you will recall.

I thought that had a better chance then this does, but only because it was re-legislating what had already been put in place by a former president. I still believe Obama only signed that bill because he fully expected the "blood baths on the paths" scenario that the antis had been hyping about, and he would get wide spread calls to repeal it as a result.

Jokes STILL on him on that one.

 

[hrdware]

Not true -- I live in Arizona and I have an AZ CC permit. It is valid in 30 some-odd states. Alaska and Wyoming have similar permit systems and carry laws. Vermont has never required a permit for anyone within its borders. Vermont residents can get a non-res permit from someplace else to carry outside of Vermont.

Oops...thought I read someplace that AZ didn't have permits. Thanks for the correction.

 

[heresolong]

David Kopel's testimony is pretty interesting.

http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

He points out that one thing Congress is doing is protecting the right to travel, which is one of the privileges or immunities referred to in the 14th Amendment. I haven't finished reading it yet as it's quite long but so far it makes quite a bit of sense.

 

[MadHatter66]

David Kopel's testimony is pretty interesting.

http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

He points out that one thing Congress is doing is protecting the right to travel, which is one of the privileges or immunities referred to in the 14th Amendment. I haven't finished reading it yet as it's quite long but so far it makes quite a bit of sense.

I actually read the whole 24 pages, which I never actually set out to do, just wanted to skim over it and get the general point it was making. Was a fascinating read... He certainly takes a lot of the anti's points and blows them completely out of the water...

 

[joeroket]

I would have prefered a clean bill with no federal component except the forced recongnition of other states permits, something that I beleive already should be in place.

However this amendment is probably the only one that wasn't a deal killer.

I don't see Reicherts amendment as anything other than requiring a study to determine the feasibility of allowing LEO to check on the status of an out of state permit. Nothing different than a drivers license is now as far as I can see.

 

[kcgunfan]

Those 2 states don't have a permit so it would not benefit the residents of those states. I don't know what kind of reciprocity agreements they have (if any at all). HB2900 would be better for those states.

You have this completely wrong. If you read the text of the bill, particularly Section 3, you will find that people from states that do not restrict concealed carry are treated the same as people with permits from states that use them.

`(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.

 

[BigDave]

It passed separate from the credit card bill if you will recall.

I thought that had a better chance then this does, but only because it was re-legislating what had already been put in place by a former president. I still believe Obama only signed that bill because he fully expected the "blood baths on the paths" scenario that the antis had been hyping about, and he would get wide spread calls to repeal it as a result.

Jokes STILL on him on that one.

From what I remember and can find, the Credit Card Act of 2009 was H.R.627 and the National Park Carry was an amendment 512 in that bill and was voted on and passed

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 277
H R 627 YEA-AND-NAY 20-May-2009 2:24 PM
QUESTION: Concur In Sec. 512 of Sen Amdt.
BILL TITLE: Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009

Not sure what you mean by separate as it was in the Credit Card Act of 2009, if you want to say it was separate as to the amendment being voted on to be in the bill, yes.

 

[eBratt]

You have this completely wrong. If you read the text of the bill, particularly Section 3, you will find that people from states that do not restrict concealed carry are treated the same as people with permits from states that use them.

Actually, kcgunfan, I don't believe that section is saying what you think it is. I may be mistaken, but let me parse that excerpt from the bill to explain my understanding of it.


FUGGEDABOUTIT SECTION

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms,

This just says that it doesn't matter what the different states laws say about firearms in relation to what this potential law will allow.


WHO SECTION

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,

This part identifies the persons to whom this law will be applying. There are three conditions, all of which must be met.
1. They must not be prohibited by federal law from possessing, etc. firearms
2. They must be carrying a government issues photographic ID (DL, state ID, or passport) AND
3. They must be carrying a valid license/permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by "a State" which I assume to mean any state. We'll see what the meaning actually is as this law goes into effect (if it passes the Senate and is signed by POTUS).

These requirements are joined together by the conjunction "and" so all of the parts must be met, not just one or some.


WHAT SECION

may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device)

This part identifies the action of the above identified persons which is being upheld as legal despite any other state laws. You can carry a concealed handgun.


AUTHORITY SECTION

that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,

This is their absurd and grotesque attempt to invoke the commerce clause so they can point to their authority to enact this law. This is one reason that there is a push in the more Constitution-minded crowd to pass HR 2900 that instead relies on the authority of the Full Faith and Credit section of Article IV of the constitution.


WHERE SECTION

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.

This section identifies where the persons may engage in the identified actions. It essentially says any and every state that meets these two qualifications:
1. Is not the persons state of residence
2. EITHER allows residents to obtain carry permits/licenses OR does not prohibit concealed carry

This is where two issues come up: VT and residents of restrictive "may-issue" states.

VERMONT: As I understand it, VT is the only state that has no permit system in place at all. They simply can concealed carry. Period. The problem arises in that Vermont citizens are not included in this legislation as people allowed to carry in other states under their state's "licensing" (read: their constitution and laws). This law will require them to obtain some non-resident permit from another state. This is also the basis of the concerns about HR 822 undermining constitutional carry in that a resident of AZ, WY, or AK who chooses not to get a permit and carries under state law/constitutional authority is also prohibited from carrying in other states despite being "licensed" in their state as per the constitution or laws. This is why there may be/is some resistance from people in constitutional carry states.

MAY-ISSUE STATES: This issue is best explained in an example. A resident of MA (or CA or...) cannot get a permit to CC from their state. They get a non-resident permit from any number of states. They go on vacation and take their handgun along but it has to be unloaded, cased, and locked until they are out of their home state. They can then proceed to CC their entire trip until they hit their state's boundary. There are those who see this injustice as something that this legislation should address and HR 2900 does not have the "state of residence" aspect in the WHERE section above. Effectually, this allows a MA resident who is told no on their MA permit to get a permit from elsewhere and proceed to carry in MA.

I'll refrain from commentary because I am out of time, but based on this parsing of the bill, this would not help VT residents the way you appeared to think.

 

[kcgunfan]

OK, I get you. I do agree that using the ICC is a dumb approach, but that's not exactly a novel idea when applied to firearms regulation. It's been around for a while and probably won't go away. It's not a further degradation of anything. And, laws can cite whatever justification they want. Even if the justification is not right, it's still covered under the 14th and 2nd amendments together, along with recent USSC decisions.

I think you have me on the VT piece. Of course, VT could fix that from their end pretty easily. And its residents can get non-resident permits. If VT offers one though, you get the added benefit of GFSZ protection. But, I do agree that the bill should be changed to spell out exceptions for Constitutional Carry states.

As far as non-resident permits go, the language of the bill does seem to say that those will be honored. But, I seem to remember that it didn't at some point. In any event, I think honoring them is a good idea, and I would love to see it explicitly mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather see National Constitutional Carry, I'm just enough of a realist to know that it's nigh impossible. And, I do prefer Rep. Broun's bill to this one.

From what I see, here are the differences between the 2 bills (assuming that HR822 permits non-resident permits):

HR 822 relies on the ICC clause for justification. HR 2900's text does not have any basis for justification of itself.
HR 2900 permits carrying in 50 states, and maybe DC. HR 822 permits carrying in 49 states, and definitely not DC (because neither places allow Concealed Carry.)

So, technically, HR 2900 is incrementally better than HR 822. But, it's not the end all be all that some people are saying it it. And, there's nothing magical about it that means that it can't be the same camel's nose under the tent that some others claim it to be. At the end of the day, we have HR 822 past the House, and HR 2900 still in committee. I'd rather have a flawed implementation of a good idea, than no implementation of a great idea.

Actually, kcgunfan, I don't believe that section is saying what you think it is. I may be mistaken, but let me parse that excerpt from the bill to explain my understanding of it.


FUGGEDABOUTIT SECTION

This just says that it doesn't matter what the different states laws say about firearms in relation to what this potential law will allow.


WHO SECTION

This part identifies the persons to whom this law will be applying. There are three conditions, all of which must be met.
1. They must not be prohibited by federal law from possessing, etc. firearms
2. They must be carrying a government issues photographic ID (DL, state ID, or passport) AND
3. They must be carrying a valid license/permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by "a State" which I assume to mean any state. We'll see what the meaning actually is as this law goes into effect (if it passes the Senate and is signed by POTUS).

These requirements are joined together by the conjunction "and" so all of the parts must be met, not just one or some.


WHAT SECION

This part identifies the action of the above identified persons which is being upheld as legal despite any other state laws. You can carry a concealed handgun.


AUTHORITY SECTION

This is their absurd and grotesque attempt to invoke the commerce clause so they can point to their authority to enact this law. This is one reason that there is a push in the more Constitution-minded crowd to pass HR 2900 that instead relies on the authority of the Full Faith and Credit section of Article IV of the constitution.


WHERE SECTION

This section identifies where the persons may engage in the identified actions. It essentially says any and every state that meets these two qualifications:
1. Is not the persons state of residence
2. EITHER allows residents to obtain carry permits/licenses OR does not prohibit concealed carry

This is where two issues come up: VT and residents of restrictive "may-issue" states.

VERMONT: As I understand it, VT is the only state that has no permit system in place at all. They simply can concealed carry. Period. The problem arises in that Vermont citizens are not included in this legislation as people allowed to carry in other states under their state's "licensing" (read: their constitution and laws). This law will require them to obtain some non-resident permit from another state. This is also the basis of the concerns about HR 822 undermining constitutional carry in that a resident of AZ, WY, or AK who chooses not to get a permit and carries under state law/constitutional authority is also prohibited from carrying in other states despite being "licensed" in their state as per the constitution or laws. This is why there may be/is some resistance from people in constitutional carry states.

MAY-ISSUE STATES: This issue is best explained in an example. A resident of MA (or CA or...) cannot get a permit to CC from their state. They get a non-resident permit from any number of states. They go on vacation and take their handgun along but it has to be unloaded, cased, and locked until they are out of their home state. They can then proceed to CC their entire trip until they hit their state's boundary. There are those who see this injustice as something that this legislation should address and HR 2900 does not have the "state of residence" aspect in the WHERE section above. Effectually, this allows a MA resident who is told no on their MA permit to get a permit from elsewhere and proceed to carry in MA.

I'll refrain from commentary because I am out of time, but based on this parsing of the bill, this would not help VT residents the way you appeared to think.

 

[eBratt]

OK, I get you. I do agree that using the ICC is a dumb approach, but that's not exactly a novel idea when applied to firearms regulation. It's been around for a while and probably won't go away. It's not a further degradation of anything. And, laws can cite whatever justification they want. Even if the justification is not right, it's still covered under the 14th and 2nd amendments together, along with recent USSC decisions.

All true but it is still an abuse of the ICC. I am not opposing the bill outright on this but the Libertarian side of me wants to.

I think you have me on the VT piece. Of course, VT could fix that from their end pretty easily. And its residents can get non-resident permits. If VT offers one though, you get the added benefit of GFSZ protection. But, I do agree that the bill should be changed to spell out exceptions for Constitutional Carry states.

I wasn't trying to "get" anyone. We're all on the same side her of wanting to promote being responsibly and legally armed in the preservation of life and safety.

As for VT, they shouldn't have to implement an expensive and regressive measure for carrying. Nor, if they are allowed to carry in their home state, should they have to get some other state's permit just to kowtow to the system that is catering to more draconian laws. If this is truly about honoring the right to carry then we should honor VT's residents as much as any other state. Just my take on it.

As far as non-resident permits go, the language of the bill does seem to say that those will be honored. But, I seem to remember that it didn't at some point. In any event, I think honoring them is a good idea, and I would love to see it explicitly mentioned.

Yes, non-res permits are honored as valid everywhere EXCEPT the state of residence.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather see National Constitutional Carry, I'm just enough of a realist to know that it's nigh impossible.

Hi, Preacher. Meet the choir.

From what I see, here are the differences between the 2 bills (assuming that HR822 permits non-resident permits):

HR 822 relies on the ICC clause for justification. HR 2900's text does not have any basis for justification of itself.

Yup, it appears that the bill doesn't cite justification or reference anything. GOA has bee touting that it would fall under the full faith and credit clause but nowhere in the bill does it outright say that.

HR 2900 permits carrying in 50 states, and maybe DC. HR 822 permits carrying in 49 states, and definitely not DC (because neither places allow Concealed Carry.)

I don't read it that way. The specific language of the bill says that you may carry in any state "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." To me, that means that if the state outright bans the carrying of concealed firearms, then the whole state is a "[location] in which firearms may not be carried." I could be wrong, but I don't think they are over-ruling IL and DC. If they were, there would be a lot more outcry about the bill.

So, technically, HR 2900 is incrementally better than HR 822. But, it's not the end all be all that some people are saying it it. And, there's nothing magical about it that means that it can't be the same camel's nose under the tent that some others claim it to be. At the end of the day, we have HR 822 past the House, and HR 2900 still in committee. I'd rather have a flawed implementation of a good idea, than no implementation of a great idea.

If my interpretation is correct (and I am just as fallible as anyone else), when it comes to the geographical area in which one would be able to carry, 2900 is no better or worse than 822.


One thing that stuck out that is slightly concerning about 822 is this the bolded language in the excerpt below:

may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

Does that mean that people who have a restricted permit from their state (such as range transport only) that when traveling and using that permit as the legal justification for carry would then only be able to carry in other states if they are traveling to or from a range?

I'd love for some other people to chime in on this.

 

[eBratt]

On an entirely separate 822 note, does it override make/model and capacity bans in certain states? So if I wanted to go to CA after 822 is in effect, would I have to check to see if my 4" XD 9mm is on the CA approved list and then, even if it is, leave my 15 round mags at home?

 

[kcgunfan]

All true but it is still an abuse of the ICC. I am not opposing the bill outright on this but the Libertarian side of me wants to.


I wasn't trying to "get" anyone. We're all on the same side her of wanting to promote being responsibly and legally armed in the preservation of life and safety.

As for VT, they shouldn't have to implement an expensive and regressive measure for carrying. Nor, if they are allowed to carry in their home state, should they have to get some other state's permit just to kowtow to the system that is catering to more draconian laws. If this is truly about honoring the right to carry then we should honor VT's residents as much as any other state. Just my take on it.


Yes, non-res permits are honored as valid everywhere EXCEPT the state of residence.


Hi, Preacher. Meet the choir.



Yup, it appears that the bill doesn't cite justification or reference anything. GOA has bee touting that it would fall under the full faith and credit clause but nowhere in the bill does it outright say that.


I don't read it that way. The specific language of the bill says that you may carry in any state "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." To me, that means that if the state outright bans the carrying of concealed firearms, then the whole state is a "[location] in which firearms may not be carried." I could be wrong, but I don't think they are over-ruling IL and DC. If they were, there would be a lot more outcry about the bill.


If my interpretation is correct (and I am just as fallible as anyone else), when it comes to the geographical area in which one would be able to carry, 2900 is no better or worse than 822.


One thing that stuck out that is slightly concerning about 822 is this the bolded language in the excerpt below:

Does that mean that people who have a restricted permit from their state (such as range transport only) that when traveling and using that permit as the legal justification for carry would then only be able to carry in other states if they are traveling to or from a range?

I'd love for some other people to chime in on this.

I wasn't accusing you of trying to get me. I made a mistake, and I appreciate the correction. I was not proposing an expensive or regressive measure for VT. The could simply add onto their driver's license and state id cards "CCW endorsement valid until: $EXPIRATION_DATE_OF_DRIVERS_LICENSE" Not everything requires starting from 0.

There are those on this forum that believe that you are a traitor to "the cause" if you claim support for this bill. Personally, I see it as something is better than nothing. When the new something is accepted as normal, we pick something else to work on.

My point on comparing the 2 is that there really isn't much difference to the 2 bills. And, you seem to agree with that. As far as carrying in IL goes, I was reading the second half of the sentence you quoted from, and was assuming that it was clarifying the first 1/2. But, it doesn't matter. I think we're agreed that the geography covered is the same, or close enough to not really matter that much compared to today.

I am curious about the range permit question myself, that seems to be a corner case. What states issue those types of permits?

 

[gogodawgs]

On an entirely separate 822 note, does it override make/model and capacity bans in certain states? So if I wanted to go to CA after 822 is in effect, would I have to check to see if my 4" XD 9mm is on the CA approved list and then, even if it is, leave my 15 round mags at home?

No. You would have to follow CA law. (Yes, you would need to leave the 15rd mag at home)

 

[hermannr]

I personally think the bill is written in such a manner that a VT resident could carry out of state with their VT drivers license, as it is a photo ID.

 

[eBratt]

I am curious about the range permit question myself, that seems to be a corner case. What states issue those types of permits?

I know both NY and MA do. Very possibly others.

 

[eBratt]

I personally think the bill is written in such a manner that a VT resident could carry out of state with their VT drivers license, as it is a photo ID.

You may be right. For me, the part that indicates "no" is that there is an "and" between the ID portion and the permit portion which seems to indicate they must possess both.