by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced HR 822 on Friday. It is:
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.
The full text of the bill is not yet available and he hasn’t issued a press release describing the bill.
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) – my Congressman – is the first co-sponsor of the bill. Whatever else I might say about Heath, he is good on the Second Amendment. You also may remember that he came out in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings saying he had a CCW permit and did carry. He also encouraged his staff to obtain a CCW permit.
I will call Shuler’s office tomorrow to see if I can get a copy of the text of the bill as it may be a few days before the Government Printing Office has it available.
UPDATE: Thanks to Paul Flusche of Congressman Cliff Stearn’s office we have the text of the bill. After a quick reading of the bill, I’d see this is a pretty good bill. If a state issues a concealed carry permit, then your CCW is good there subject to the rules for an unrestricted CCW. For example, if your home state allows you to carry in a place that serves alcohol but you are in North Carolina which doesn’t, you have to abide by the NC CHP regulations.
Here is the full text of the 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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on (blank)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:
‘‘§ 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.
There is a major problem with concealed carry in a state not your own: the federal Gun Free School Zones Act bans carry within 1000 feet of school unless you have a permit issued by the STATE in which the school is in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
It is virtually impossible to travel around in a state without passing within 1000 feet of a school. This means that most of the people who carry outside their own state are probably committing federal felonies!
This desperately needs to be fixed in this legislation.
" If a state issues a concealed carry permit, then your CCW is good there subject to the rules for an unrestricted CCW. For example, if your home state allows you to carry in a place that serves alcohol but you are in North Carolina which doesn't, you have to abide by the NC CHP regulations."
I don't see this. I am assuming you are looking at §926D(b) but I am not seeing that meaning. I believe it means the opposite. The problem is the use of "State" with no qualification of which state it is.
It is virtually impossible to travel around in a state without passing within 1000 feet of a school. This means that most of the people who carry outside their own state are probably committing federal felonies!
Agreed. I see the GFSZ act as one of those laws that's basically impossible not to violate.
I can travel all over Kansas,,and never even come close to a school until I come within a town, and then the laws states that knowingly and willfully disobeying the law is a crime.
What about places like NJ? They do issue carry permits but no one but retired cops and the elite can get them. Everyone else can't satisfy the "justifiable need" requirement so we don't have NJ issued permits for the common man. The wording "in any State, other than the State of residence of the person" seems to kill NJ resident's chances of having a FL, VA or UT permit honored in our home state. It seems a guy who lives in PA and has a PA issued permit is good to go in NJ, NY, CA, MA, HI and similar places that don't have reciprocity agreements with anyone.
The case of US v Lopez in SCOTUS gutted the power of the GFSZ act by decaring it outside of the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. So, you needn't worry about GFSZ act zis-a-vis reciprocity. It's a red herring.
"The case of US v Lopez in SCOTUS gutted the power of the GFSZ act by declaring it outside of the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. So, you needn't worry about GFSZ act vis-a-vis reciprocity. It's a red herring."
No longer true! In response to the Lopez Case, Congress re-passed the GFSZ Act (changing the wording a bit to avoid the Lopez Case limitations). So yes indeed, it is a fact that the current Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is a major issue. We need to ask Congress to fix that as well!
In-a-nutshell is means that if you have a CCW for your state, you can go to a state where they have CCW and carry…reciprocity; you would have to abide by the current state laws that you are CCWing in. So the loop hole for people whose state/city/sheriff did not approve thier apps would to be go get an out-of-state permit from another state; then thier home state would have to honor it…if this passes.
I think this law would make it so that having an out of State permit would be the equivalent of an in State permit. But a judge might have to interpret it as such. Lets say for example that I a resident of California obtained a Florida or Utah permit (which I could have already but haven't bothered too because there not honored here) and went into a School zone, and a COP searched me. That the Police Officer would have to decide if it's acceptable for me a RESIDENT of this State (CA) to (A) CCW with this permit and or (B) be inside of a school Zone under the GFSZ as well as State law. Sounds like that's going to be a court case unless the law is made more specific.
The major problem with concealed carry in a state not your own: the federal Gun Free School Zones Act bans carry within 1000 feet of school unless you have a permit issued by the STATE in which the school is in.
firearm safety course