search
top

HR822 Lies and Distortions Continue

Our opponents are continuing to distort the National Recprocity Bill. This editorial out of Eugene Oregon note opposition groups suggesting the bill is setting federal standards for permits, which is does not:

But opponents of the legislation, which includes a coalition of 600 U.S. mayors, the American Bar Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, say, if enacted into law, the measure would “dumb down” gun laws all across the country, requiring states, cities and counties with more stringent concealed weapons laws — including gun safety training requirements — to loosen their standards. And that, opponents say, would create a threat to public safety.

The way MAIG and the other gun control organizations are putting it, it makes it sound as if HR822 weakens established state issuance standards. It does not. It just forces each state to recognize permits from each other state. This is a clever way of putting it, which is not technically a lie, since some states, like Ohio, will only sign reciprocity agreements with other states that mandate training. This bill would indeed take that power away from the State of Ohio, and other states that have similar reciprocity standards. But by distorting it this way, they make the bill sound worse, from their point of view, than it really is.

6 Responses to “HR822 Lies and Distortions Continue”

  1. Charles Curran says:

    ” But by distorting it this way,they make the bill SOUND WORSE THAN IT REALLY IS”. I might have left this sentence off.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I clarified the sentence.

  3. Beamish says:

    One thing I have not seen much about is what impact, if any, HR822 on local licensing/registrations of firearms for temporary or part-time residents.

    We know from the Newark Airport Arrest of the Utah businessman that FOPA will not protect you in a hotel stay according the Garden State DAs. Would this bill increase our protection?

    If I live in PA and work in NJ or NY this bill would, ostensibly, allow me to carry on my commute and at work (subject to workplace rules of course). But what if I stay near work for a week on a big project – can I keep my CCW in the hotel safe? (Maybe) Can I have a long arm? (Probably not)

    What if I have a pied-a-terre apartment that I use during inclement winter weather or busy periods? Can I keep a firearm in that locale or only what I am “carrying” when I cross State Lines?

    While this bill is a step in the right direction it is still far from a clear declaration of one’s ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless of the municipality where they reside permanently or temporarily. Sadly, such a broad legislation would like carry a Federalization of requirements for training and/or background.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    It would allow you to carry in NJ, full stop. Residency doesn’t Ebert into it, unless you become an NJ resident legally, which requires more than starting at a holiday inn.

  5. Matthew says:

    I have no problem with the way they stated it. In effect it does change the state’s “established state issuance standards” – for non-residents at least. That is a (small) part of the entire point of the law.

  6. Ian Argent says:

    To clarify my previous statement, if you are not a legal resident of the state you’re physically in, you can carry on an out-of-state permit subject to the laws concerning carry by the least restricted class of license that can be issued to a legal resident of that state.
    Legal residency is fairly well defined, for tax reasons if nothing else. Generally speaking, your driver’s license is issued by your state of legal residence.

top