Broun Introduces Concealed Carry Recognition Bill

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • drwalther

    MSI Executive Member
    Jun 18, 2010
    509
    Berlin
    From the GOA:

    Thursday, 22 September 2011 19:11
    Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.

    Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.

    And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.

    For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level. Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government's permission.

    After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they're not criminals before being allowed to carry?

    Vermont had it right for over a century. Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.

    And the result? Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.

    And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes. And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.

    Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.

    And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.

    Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.

    Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.

    After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.

    The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).

    In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms. This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.

    Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

    Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.
    ===========================
    I can't seem to find anything about what relationship this bill might have with the "National Reciprocity" bill, but from the read, it appears to be taking a different tack.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,775
    Don't we already have a bill for this that is being worked on and prepared?

    Sounds like a guy trying to boost his credentials with voters. There is a strategy to this all, and it annoys me when people can't see that or push it aside for person gain. They risk bringing it all down.
     

    Nothinghead

    Active Member
    Jun 29, 2011
    355
    Severna Park
    I believe the difference here is the constitutional carry friendly part. I am no policy maker or lawyer, but isn't that an issue with HR 822?
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    Constitutional carry is the only constitutional way to carry.
    CCW licenses are little more than backdoor gun registration and gun registration makes gun confiscation possible.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

    `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, 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.

    `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, 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.'.

    There are a few people upset that HR 822 does not talk about open carry. Some of the original sponsors wanted it in, but when the house was polled they found it would not pass. At least, not yet. Maybe after.

    This bill is a sour grapes response. What it does is let Virginia residents OC in Florida even though Florida prohibits OC. It says that the rules of your home state go with you everywhere, to every state that offers CC, even if the state you are visiting has contrary rules. The only exception is place restrictions.

    It won't go anywhere. The author knows it. If anything, it serves to scare the hell out of the Washington Post.

    I am all for OC, but sometimes you gotta wonder if the real diehards in that group understand that their impatience makes it harder for everyone. It is coming. Incremental steps take you far. But reach too far and you fall over.

    For the record, open carry makes sense for people like me and my wife. We are not huge people and it is tough to conceal a firearm, even those little mouse guns. It kinda works, but not in anything approaching warm weather clothing. Some states will harass anyone printing...being able to OC would help us there.

    So I am not trying to slam OC, but I am pointing out that the impatience I sense in some of those pushing it is making things a little harder on the baseline issues. Nothing to do but deal with it, I guess. After all, I sympathize.
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    There are a few people upset that HR 822 does not talk about open carry. Some of the original sponsors wanted it in, but when the house was polled they found it would not pass. At least, not yet. Maybe after.

    This bill is a sour grapes response. What it does is let Virginia residents OC in Florida even though Florida prohibits OC. It says that the rules of your home state go with you everywhere, to every state that offers CC, even if the state you are visiting has contrary rules. The only exception is place restrictions.

    It won't go anywhere. The author knows it. If anything, it serves to scare the he'll out of the Washington Post.

    The bill should say the Constitution applies in all states and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed no matter which state you happen to be in, oh wait, the only bill needed for that is the Bill Of Rights!
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The bill should say the Constitution applies in all states and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed no matter which state you happen to be in, oh wait, the only bill needed for that is the Bill Of Rights!

    That is coming soon to a congress near you. :)

    We just need the supreme court to settle a certain little dispute. Pushing the matter you suggest today would actually slow down implementation due to lawsuits being mooted due to the legislation...which would then have to start the entire lawsuit process over from scratch. It would add years to the fight.

    HR 822 is designed to go into effect waiting on SCOTUS, then the congress can circle back and finish off the entire issue. Look at the math: SCOTUS ruling in 2012; a more conservative senate in 2012; and maybe even a pro-gun president in 2013.

    Most of those working legislative and judicial issues are working in step. There is a reason all of this is happening the way it is. This is a tag-team fight, and the knockout punches are coming.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,928
    WV
    There are a few people upset that HR 822 does not talk about open carry. Some of the original sponsors wanted it in, but when the house was polled they found it would not pass. At least, not yet. Maybe after.

    This bill is a sour grapes response. What it does is let Virginia residents OC in Florida even though Florida prohibits OC. It says that the rules of your home state go with you everywhere, to every state that offers CC, even if the state you are visiting has contrary rules. The only exception is place restrictions.

    It won't go anywhere. The author knows it. If anything, it serves to scare the hell out of the Washington Post.

    I am all for OC, but sometimes you gotta wonder if the real diehards in that group understand that their impatience makes it harder for everyone. It is coming. Incremental steps take you far. But reach too far and you fall over.

    For the record, open carry makes sense for people like me and my wife. We are not huge people and it is tough to conceal a firearm, even those little mouse guns. It kinda works, but not in anything approaching warm weather clothing. Some states will harass anyone printing...being able to OC would help us there.

    So I am not trying to slam OC, but I am pointing out that the impatience I sense in some of those pushing it is making things a little harder on the baseline issues. Nothing to do but deal with it, I guess. After all, I sympathize.

    I'm not seeing how this would allow OC-the bill keeps mentioning concealed firearms only.
     

    rayg5102

    Active Member
    Apr 12, 2009
    834
    Frederick
    So if I understand correctly, with the passage of this bill, that my ability NOT to carry in MD would be recipricated across the country and that I would NOT be able to carry in all the other 49 states?
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,775
    So if I understand correctly, with the passage of this bill, that my ability NOT to carry in MD would be recipricated across the country and that I would NOT be able to carry in all the other 49 states?

    Unfortunately, but this bill is only part of the big picture. Other parts will address the non-issue in some states.

    With this bill, MD residents will be able to see that CCW does not mean showdown at the OK Coral and maybe, when some PA student shoots a guy trying to rape her, some people will begin to see the error of disarming honest people.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I'm not seeing how this would allow OC-the bill keeps mentioning concealed firearms only.

    I appear to have over-read that.

    I am simply wrong. On further exam without the iPhone to blame, this looks to be GOA trying to solve the "Vermont Problem" without forcing VT people to get non-permits from other states, and pushing Constitutional Carry at the same time. In that case, the Vermont driver's license would be the "permit" for VT residents everywhere. Of course, it would apply to other states that do not require permits for residents (AZ, for example), as it appears they would be covered under the same language. So in that sense, it pushes the Constitutional Carry case a bit further and might goad some states into trying it out. But I don't think so, and I do not think this has a chance of passing unless enough sponsors force it in the House. Of course, that would scuttle the Senate where things are barely holding as-is.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,928
    WV
    I'm thinking with movement of HR 822, the introduction of this bill and the Tester bill in the Senate that something's going to happen VERY soon.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    House leadership wants HR 822 out of the house by the end of October. The problem is they are moving without senate coordination. The senate is where this bill needs to move, not the House. Anything that happens without senate coordination is mostly pretty window dressing for the voters. The senate is tying some loose ends...
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,928
    WV
    House leadership wants HR 822 out of the house by the end of October. The problem is they are moving without senate coordination. The senate is where this bill needs to move, not the House. Anything that happens without senate coordination is mostly pretty window dressing for the voters. The senate is tying some loose ends...

    Is a companion Senate bill necessary, or can't HR 822 just be added to the final bill and the Senate approves that?
     

    Kilroy

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 27, 2011
    3,069
    Next up will be a federal mandating standards for the issuing of CCW permits. It's only logical.
    Oops, there goes everyone's shall issue permits!

    The federal government has the reverse midas touch. Everything they touch turns to garbage. I'm from Arizona, and I DO NOT want our carry laws modified. Just because some states can't seem to stop electing libtards doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished for that.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,928
    WV
    Next up will be a federal mandating standards for the issuing of CCW permits. It's only logical.
    Oops, there goes everyone's shall issue permits!

    The federal government has the reverse midas touch. Everything they touch turns to garbage. I'm from Arizona, and I DO NOT want our carry laws modified. Just because some states can't seem to stop electing libtards doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished for that.

    Explain how, if SCOTUS rules the 2A includes public carry, that the Federal government can just make a law banning public carry?

    HR 822 does not modify AZ's carry laws. Please show me where in the bill it does.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,775
    Is a companion Senate bill necessary, or can't HR 822 just be added to the final bill and the Senate approves that?

    HR 822 will be passed by the House

    An amendment will be added to a Senate bill with the same basic language.

    The House will vote to accept the language of the Senate and it will go to the President.

    The Senate will never pass the bill on it's own under it's current makeup; but as an Amendment to another must pass bill, there is a chance. It also gives plausible deniability to some people.

    There's really only 4 things that can blow up the way I see

    1.) The Senate is unable to come to terms over the training issues

    2.) The House pushes the issue to hard trying to shore up votes and poisons the pot.

    3.) The House gets greedy and pushes for to much to soon.

    4.) A must pass bill that isn't going to be a political supernova doesn't come up.

    This was supposed to be attached to the debt ceiling bill I think, but when that blew up like a supernova, it had to be put on hold.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,949
    Messages
    7,302,073
    Members
    33,545
    Latest member
    guitarsit

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom