HR822 has been replaced by the Franks Amendment. It’s a bit different than the original bill, but I’m not sure the practical effect of this bill is any different than the last version. Here’s the meat:
(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
The Brady folks are getting hysterical about this change:
But the Franks Amendment forces states to recognize the concealed carry licenses of non-residents, even if they are ineligible to possess a handgun in the state where the carrying occurs.
For example, under Tennessee law, Tennessee residents with concealed weapons permits may be prosecuted for violating the Stateâ€™s law prohibiting handgun possession by persons â€˜while under the influence of alcohol.â€™
The Franks Amendment would make that prohibition unenforceable against someone with a concealed carry permit visiting from another state, who is caught in possession of a gun in Tennessee while intoxicated.
I seriously don’t understand how this can be the case. Not being intoxicated while carrying is among the “conditions and limitations” that are “apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State.” So Dennis is either bad at reading legislation, or being deliberately deceitful. As best I can tell, this is the same bill as it was before, just worded a bit differently. The language for this version is just a little more solid, I think, rather than different.
17 thoughts on “HR822 Replaced”
Does this language make the in-state license exemption to the Gun Free School Zones Act apply to out-of-state licenses as well?
That is exactly what I was wondering???
By my interpretation, no. But neither did the last version.
I think I understand the version substituted. It works like this. Let’s say State A makes it illegal to possess a firearm if you have ever been convicted of jaywalking. Since that’s not a bar to receiving a permit in State B, the anti-gun A-holes in State A might think, hey, let’s arrest State B permit holders if they’ve ever been convicted of jaywalking and charge them with unlawful possession! How cool is that?
We don’t have to argue about concealed carry at all! We can just make it a disqualifier to possess a handgun if you’ve had a speeding ticket, and then none of these out of state gun toters can prance through our state with guns!!!
Wrong Way Hennigan is just lying. He starts off with the truth, you won’t be able to charge people with unlawful possession, but then he hangs a left and runs straight into WTF Land.
The usual suspects will believe it, but everyone else will shake their heads and ignore him and whatever intern wrote that stupid press release.
That’s my interpretation as well. The new language basically says if you have a permit from any state, and you’re carrying in a state, other than your state or residence, you’re eligible to possess or carry a handgun.
that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
Note that it does not say “State or political subdivision” at the end. This means New York City can’t get out of HR822 by just prohibiting concealed carry altogether. They have to go to the New York State Assembly and get them to do it. Very smart move.
I had to read that four times, and eventually used a sentence diagram for the first time since middle school.
Does Congress have a punctuation shortage?
It’s been brought to my attention that Dudley Brown has asserted the following; I’m curious what Sebastian & Co. say about this gloss:
As I type this, all-out war has been declared on your gun rights in Washington, D.C. by the House Judiciary Committee.
Your National Association for Gun Rights has been warning you that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse.
Just today, Republicans helped pass an amendment that orders the Feds to investigate the â€œsafetyâ€ of mail-in CCW permits from states like Florida, Utah and New Hampshire.
If you possess a NH, FL or UT permit, the Feds are going to investigate if these permits are â€œsafe.â€
So-called â€œpro-gunâ€ Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as â€œterrorists.â€
And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reidâ€™s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.
The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.
While the institutional gun lobby has put its full support behind H.R. 822, gun owners just cannot afford for them to play poker with our gun rights.
I have listed the phone numbers for every Republican on the Judiciary Committee below. Please make as many calls as you can expressing your displeasure with H.R. 822, but do it quickly before this monster gets even worse.
Dudley Brown is crazy. I’ll have more to say later.
What about this SAFE Act, or HR 2900:
“GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 â€” introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) â€“ and explained the weaknesses in his bill. Many of you have taken action on our alerts and informed your Representative that there is a better approach.
“That approach has been championed by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the author of H.R. 2900 â€” or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act.
“The Broun bill has several advantages:
“It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other â€œmay issueâ€ states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states â€” an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearnsâ€™ bill;
“Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit; and
“Finally, the Broun bill does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Passing gun legislation that uses the Commerce Clause for authority could undercut efforts at promoting Firearms Freedom Act legislation throughout the country which specifically declares the Commerce Clause has no authority over the production of intrastate guns.”
That was the bill that failed in the Senate last time.
HR 2900 will not be considered in the House. It may make GOA feel good that Cong. Broun has offered it, but it is not going to get a hearing or a vote in the House. The only bill that has a chance of passage is HR 822 which is one of the reasons why Cong Broun is a cosponsor of the NRA supported bill.
Keep this in mind ( http://ace.mu.nu/archives/322607.php ) when Laddy and Denny are caterwauling about “drug users” from other states carrying near your kids.
As much as I want to be shut of the draconian and unconstitutional infringements that NJ makes of my RKBA, allowing me (as an NJ resident) to carry in NJ on a permit issued by another state is as gross a violation of state sovereignty as I can think of. State citizenship means very little right now, let’s not destroy it totally as collateral damage when there’s other bullets in the magazine.
Honestly, from the state sovereignty POV, I’m not thrilled by this measure, but until every state is shall-issue on demand, the corner-case of third-state permits is going to need to be allowed. Fix it so I can get an NJ permit, and the feds can force reciprocity, and the need for third-state permits goes away.
I figure that HR822 is going to pass. Probably with some additional clauses that weaken it a bit, but I’m pretty certain that it will mean states will refuse to issue permits to non-residents regardless. Doing so would just upset the CA .gov a bit too much. Hell, the only reason we get out of state permits now is because the reciprocity is so poor.
Is it out of the realm of logic that a person, licensed to carry in their home state, has to abide by the laws of a state they visit? If you’re going to carry at least follow the rules. Which brings its own quagmire of crap with it.
Yet if it does pass you can bet your sweet bippy that I’m going to visit my friends in Norcal during the summer. It gets hot enough that an Oregon boy like me might have to take his over-shirt off!
NYC was granted “home rule” authority by the state legislature. They do not need to go to Albany to enact gun control laws.
For the purposes of HR822 after the Franks amendment, they have to go to the state – the last clause does not say anything about “political subdivisons” being able to prohibit carry if the State doesn’t.
Comments are closed.