U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-C​arry Reciprocit​y Legislatio​n

U.S. House Passes NRA-backed

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.
"NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. "People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise."
H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

"We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country," concluded Cox.

That's good to hear,.....Especially since I usually go to Joliet once a year to race.

With all the stealing going on lately with peoples tow rigs & race cars, a person needs all the help he/she can get.


At least I'll be legal next time I go.

Keith Joliet is in Illinois. That's the one state that you won't be allowed to carry!!!
You would be legal if you came up I65 and on 80/94 til you crossed the border. Then you'd be in trouble
mike

f250mike wrote:Keith Joliet is in Illinois. That's the one state that you won't be allowed to carry!!!
You would be legal if you came up I65 and on 80/94 til you crossed the border. Then you'd be in trouble
mike

If the law is enforced word for word ... FEDERAL LAW will preempt any state law unless a disclaimer is written within that law. If you live OUTSIDE of Illinois you will be a traveler and therefore allowed to carry if you have a CCW from your home state.

Randy read this :

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

John Myrick wrote:Randy read this :

H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

They will be forced ... "it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits" ... if that isn't the case, (as it says word for word), then the law means little as someone traveling would need to go AROUND Illinois and DC instead of through them to get to their destination.

As a professional licensed by the State of Texas to practice Land Surveying, it's my opinion that forcing states to recognize each others licensing for whatever reason, is a slippery slope. They need to be wary of setting precedents that might be used later to undermine state requirements based on federal mandated reciprocity.

That being said, this seems like a "look at us, see what we're doing" stunt by the House because I doubt this bill will ever pass the Senate, much less the WH.

NO matter what the laws are,......... I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6,......."IF" you get my drift?

When we travel for racing and/or camping I carry. I'll just be sure to avoid Illinois

I've been training/instructing Tracy and Alex. Tracy is working towards getting her CCW soon. I'm looking at getting her a small revolver to carry in her purse, something like the S&W 642

D. Sea wrote: Tracy is working towards getting her CCW soon. I'm looking at getting her a small revolver to carry in her purse, something like the S&W 629 Classic in 44 Mag with an 8 3/8" barrel.

There fixed that for you Mr. Sea, you can never have enough gun. All she will have to say is "pardon me while I whip this out".

Damon, I like your 642 Idea ... Alloy frame, 44 special, 5 shot, hammerless S&W ... won't even know it's there until you may need it.

I prefer the Charter Arms version myself ... it costs about half the money but, it's a steel frame..

I really don't care for guns. With that said , that law that just pass should go all the way to the White House and get signed . The carrier is the same person in any other state the he/she steps into

rmcomprandy wrote:Damon, I like your 642 Idea ... Alloy frame, 44 special, 5 shot, hammerless S&W ... won't even know it's there until you may need it.

I prefer the Charter Arms version myself ... it costs about half the money but, it's a steel frame..

Randy,

When I buy anything new I get it form a friend of mine (He was the QC Manger where I work) who has his FFL so he gets me anything I want at his cost. Saved me a few bucks on the S&W 22A and the DPMS AR-15.

His wife has a S&W 642 in her purse which is specifically made for a small CCW and can be fired from the purse

Anyway, I like the Charter Arms revolvers as well. Maybe I'll get her a pretty Pink one for Christmas

DanH,

If anything pro-gun goes to the Whitehouse for a signature it's gonna get an instant stamp that says "Denied"

DanH wrote: I really don't care for guns. With that said , that law that just pass should go all the way to the White House and get signed . The carrier is the same person in any other state the he/she steps into

You got to admit is good to have a choice though...... Freedom is a good thing.