PDA

View Full Version : hr822 vs hr2900


dipsomaniac
10-14-2011, 12:17 AM
House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

The House Judiciary Committee will soon be voting on legislation that will guarantee the right of citizens to carry firearms out-of-state. And the vote could come as early as today or tomorrow!

GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 -- introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) -- 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 -- or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. The Broun bill has several advantages:

1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

2. 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

3. 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.

We need to continue putting heat on Congress, now that this reciprocity legislation is beginning to move. You’ve already sent your emails, but now it’s time to change things up and send postcards. If the House committee passes the Stearns bill, then it will probably come to the floor of the House some time next month.

So there is plenty of time to inundate Representatives’ offices with postcards and mail -- urging them to support H.R. 2900 -- or to amend the Stearns bill so that it contains the gun owners’ protections in the Broun bill.

So, GOA members, please be looking for the latest mailing from GOA headquarters which should begin arriving this week. And please take the enclosed postcard and send it to your Representative. Then, take the extra two postcards and have pro-gun family members and friends send them, as well. That will multiply your efforts by 200%. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/10/latest-from-goa-on-mistaken-hr-822.html

Tacobandit
10-14-2011, 12:49 AM
I don't think it allows non-resident LTC permits to be valid here

SilverBulletZ06
10-14-2011, 1:51 AM
I like 2900 better.

Decoligny
10-14-2011, 2:06 AM
1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

2. 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;
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/10/latest-from-goa-on-mistaken-hr-822.html


HR2900 does no such thing. The full text of the bill is linked below. Unless I am just unable to read coherently at 3 am, I can't find either of the two above mentioned benefits listed in this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2900

ALSystems
10-14-2011, 2:08 AM
Interesting :popcorn:

Ubermcoupe
10-14-2011, 6:54 AM
First I've heard if 2900.

Ubermcoupe
10-14-2011, 8:13 AM
1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

HR2900 does no such thing. The full text of the bill is linked below. Unless I am just unable to read coherently at 3 am, I can't find either of the two above mentioned benefits listed in this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2900


Are you sure?
‘(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.

Sounds like that to me, but I did have to read it more than once, Am I off?

If your OOS LTC says you cannot carry in any place other than within the state it was issued I would agree, but if your OOS LTC does not have other restrictions, in accordance with this bill, it would be legal in any state.

ccmc
10-14-2011, 8:20 AM
I'm guessing if the bill goes anywhere they'd eventually end up with the drivers license template. I can't see the Senate going along with something that lets may issue state residents carry in their own states on LTCs from another state. There are pessimists that suggests that some may issue states would scrap their LTC systems entirely to avoid nonresident carry. Hard to say what will eventually happen. Truthfully I don't expect any national reciprocity bill to pass the Senate, but I'd like to be wrong.

Crom
10-14-2011, 8:39 AM
It took me reading H.R. 2900 Sec 926D paragraphs (1) & (2) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2900) seven times before I understood what the heck the bill is supposed to do.

Paragraph (1) is directed at people who have a license from any state, may carry concealed in all 50 states.
Paragraph (2) is directed to people who do not have a carry license and can't get one from their home state, like citizens of Vermont, may carry concealed in all 50 states.

I would say that, Yes, there is a huge difference between the Sterns HR 822 and this bill H.R. 2900.

HR 2900 would enable California citizens to carry in California with an out of state resident permit/license.

My understanding was that the authors of the Sterns bill (HR 822) worded it carefully as to not moot the ongoing right-to-carry civil litigation that is in motion. They want the Supreme Court to answer the question [Does the 2A right entitle lawful citizens to carry weapons in public for self defense]. This is a very important question and it would explicitly expand the scope of the Second Amendment right.

If congress passed HR 2900 somehow, it would appear that we would get carry, and perhaps we could still arrive at SCOTUS via another route.

Ubermcoupe
10-14-2011, 8:58 AM
It took me reading H.R. 2900 Sec 926D paragraphs (1) & (2) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2900) seven times before I understood what the heck the bill is supposed to do.


Glad I am not the only one. :sweatdrop:

Window_Seat
10-14-2011, 9:14 AM
This is how I read it...
`(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.'.

The way I read this is...

Paragraph (1) makes it so that every person with a license to carry in any state, may carry in another state, a firearm concealed.

Paragraph (2) makes it so that every person without a license in their home state, who cannot get a carry license in the home state because that state doesn't issue carry licenses may carry in another state, a firearm concealed. So folks who live in Vermont and Illinois don't have to get a license from any other state by virtue of the fact that they can't get a license in their home state. If this bill passes with this language, it will create yet, another "be careful what you wish for" moment for Illinois... :shifty:

And it took me :twoweeks: to figure it out... :p

Oh, and I like this one better, but there are some issues I raised (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7271603#post7271603) to Rep. Broun's legislative guy, and I'll go get those issues from the 2900 thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=481043) and edit in a little bit here.

Erik.

Ubermcoupe
10-14-2011, 9:28 AM
So paragraph 2 relates to Vermont-meaning because VT doesn't require a LTC than VT citizens would be able to carry in another state without a LTC.

Crom
10-14-2011, 9:29 AM
Okay, after carefully rereading the text another seven times I agree with Erik. :o

This is why I don't read bills. I'll stick to reading legal cases as I seem to have better luck with them. :D

I'll modify my previous post to eliminate any confusion for anyone who traces the thread out.

Window_Seat
10-14-2011, 9:49 AM
Okay, after carefully rereading the text another seven times I agree with Erik. :o

This is why I don't read bills. I'll stick to reading legal cases as I seem to have better luck with them. :D

I'll modify my previous post to eliminate any confusion for anyone who traces the thread out.

And I updated my post (as promised) too... I wouldn't guarantee it that way, but that is what I figure. The language in (2) needs to be clarified so people (like me) could decipher it better.

Erik.

Untamed1972
10-14-2011, 10:42 AM
This is how I read it...

The way I read this is...

Paragraph (1) makes it so that every person with a license to carry in any state, may carry in another state, a firearm concealed.

Paragraph (2) makes it so that every person without a license in their home state, who cannot get a carry license in the home state because that state doesn't issue carry licenses may carry in another state, a firearm concealed. So folks who live in Vermont and Illinois don't have to get a license from any other state by virtue of the fact that they can't get a license in their home state. If this bill passes with this language, it will create yet, another "be careful what you wish for" moment for Illinois... :shifty:

And it took me :twoweeks: to figure it out... :p

Oh, and I like this one better, but there are some issues I raised (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7271603#post7271603) to Rep. Broun's legislative guy, and I'll go get those issues from the 2900 thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=481043) and edit in a little bit here.

Erik.

So what does that do for ppl in CA where LTCs exist yet are not available to most ppl?

wheels
10-14-2011, 11:16 AM
'So paragraph 2 relates to Vermont-meaning because VT doesn't require a LTC than VT citizens would be able to carry in another state without a LTC.

It would be great if the Constitutional carry states would just add a restriction - (like glasses) for LTC on their drivers licenses/ID cards.

Example: (on the license)
Restriction - not eligible for use as a LTC

Would also give LEO a heads up that the holder may deserve further attention (ACLU would hate this aspect).

dalriaden
10-14-2011, 11:25 AM
I'm guessing if the bill goes anywhere they'd eventually end up with the drivers license template.

Pretty sure the OoS florida one is already like that.

http://legallyarmed.com/images/fl_permit.JPG except you mail in a passport photo where it says sample.

Crom
10-14-2011, 11:56 AM
So what does that do for ppl in CA where LTCs exist yet are not available to most ppl?

If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.

Untamed1972
10-14-2011, 12:07 PM
If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.

Well that would definitely be sweet.....cuz I've got UT and AZ already!

Take that Sheriff Gore! LOL

Not that this bill prolly has any chance of passing tho. But one could dream. If it did I bet it would immediately face litigation from some state somehow, possibly even with an injuction making putting it on hold while it's sorted out.

ccmc
10-14-2011, 1:31 PM
Pretty sure the OoS florida one is already like that.

http://legallyarmed.com/images/fl_permit.JPG except you mail in a passport photo where it says sample.

Figuratively, not literally :)

What I meant was that if you are a resident of California you may not use a Florida Driver's License, but you must obtain and use a California Drivers License. If you are a Florida resident you may legally drive in California using your Florida Drivers License.

Window_Seat
10-14-2011, 3:16 PM
If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.

This is why I like 2900 better than 822.

People will be opposed to it because they believe it infringes on "state's rights", but the 2A is a Federal Bill of Rights issue, and because we have 14A DP Incorporation, it becomes that much more of a Federal issue, in that, states are required to protect the 2A as it is a fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by states, instead of trashed (like CA did with this legislative session).

If 2900 passes, the State of IL will be having another one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments... :devil2:

The only problem it would create is "Carry License shopping", and that's something that would need to be addressed simply by requiring a resident who lives in a may issue state who is denied a license to give them the option of going for a bordering state.

The reason would be that for states which have the cheapest license, that state would be flooded with OOS applications, while states like Florida or Nevada, or the state with the highest cost for a LTC would get virtually no business from OOS residents.

Unless of course, those states that have high fees decide it might not be such a bad thing to lower the cost of getting a LTC.

The flip side of that issue is that it might cause other states who might be located next to may issue states that have a high population to jack up their license fees.

Either way, it would be a "good problem" to have.

Erik.

Ima2Avoter
10-14-2011, 3:28 PM
Just got off the phone with Congressman Darrel Issa. It was put forth by his staff (as his position) that HR822 is a great bill and he supports it and unless evidence comes forward, he will vote for it.

Ima2Avoter
10-14-2011, 3:33 PM
'

It would be great if the Constitutional carry states would just add a restriction - (like glasses) for LTC on their drivers licenses/ID cards.

Example: (on the license)
Restriction - not eligible for use as a LTC

Would also give LEO a heads up that the holder may deserve further attention (ACLU would hate this aspect).
I don't agree, we are talking about our Constitutional right. If we're against HR822 because it would ultimately create a database of concealed carry people, then your suggestion would also do the same. Most states have reciprocity laws that allow other states to access their DMV (not to mention allow other state's tickets to post on home state records), that would be a violation of privacy and begin the database we are all working so hard to avoid. In my opinion, this is flawed from so many angles.

Crom
10-14-2011, 3:37 PM
This is why I like 2900 better than 822.

I like it better too. Instant carry for us in Cali who can't get permits and have out of state permits.

People will be opposed to it because they believe it infringes on "state's rights", but the 2A is a Federal Bill of Rights issue, and because we have 14A DP Incorporation, it becomes that much more of a Federal issue, in that, states are required to protect the 2A as it is a fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by states, instead of trashed (like CA did with this legislative session).

Sure. 10A and all that. But any legal means possible. Let 'em use the commerce clause. My guns were built out of state. :D


The only problem it would create is "Carry License shopping", and that's something that would need to be addressed simply by requiring a resident who lives in a may issue state who is denied a license to give them the option of going for a bordering state.

The reason would be that for states which have the cheapest license, that state would be flooded with OOS applications, while states like Florida or Nevada, or the state with the highest cost for a LTC would get virtually no business from OOS residents.

Unless of course, those states that have high fees decide it might not be such a bad thing to lower the cost of getting a LTC.

The flip side of that issue is that it might cause other states who might be located next to may issue states that have a high population to jack up their license fees.

Either way, it would be a "good problem" to have.

Erik.

License shopping is not a problem. It's done right now by most gun owners who travel.

But I do agree it may pose unique challenges for some states that have a large influx of applicants. They can hire more people to process applications and give some one a job., etc. :thumbsup:

Quser.619
10-14-2011, 3:46 PM
The problem is that this will not pass the Senate unless the GOP takes control of it in 2012 & it gets the proper, veto over-riding backing necessary. I cannot see Obama signing this.

However, if it does pass, I cannot wait to see the impact on election campaign's for certain, never issues, Sheriffs through out the state.


How much would you pay to De Leon's face the moment this became law?

wheels
10-14-2011, 3:48 PM
I don't agree, we are talking about our Constitutional right. If we're against HR822 because it would ultimately create a database of concealed carry people, then your suggestion would also do the same. Most states have reciprocity laws that allow other states to access their DMV (not to mention allow other state's tickets to post on home state records), that would be a violation of privacy and begin the database we are all working so hard to avoid. In my opinion, this is flawed from so many angles.

I figure you missed my intention or I wasn't clear.

Since most have a license or ID issued from a state, my point is that by default if you have a license or ID from you state it is also a LTC unless you are prohibited by some action or behavior on your part. This would make all law abiding and mentally competent residents LTC holders by default, regardless of their intention or desire to carry. You loose the right, your license then get revoked and reissued reflecting your restriction on carry.

I'm suggesting that all law abiding residents are automatically LTC holders - as Constitutional carry implies.

matter of fact in the interest of efficiency you could issue a state ID, and restrict driving, LTC, etc....instead of having ID's and licenses as separate documents.

Window_Seat
10-14-2011, 4:20 PM
The problem is that this will not pass the Senate unless the GOP takes control of it in 2012 & it gets the proper, veto over-riding backing necessary. I cannot see Obama signing this.

However, if it does pass, I cannot wait to see the impact on election campaign's for certain, never issues, Sheriffs through out the state.


How much would you pay to De Leon's face the moment this became law?

Not necessarily... Remember the Thune Amendment when it failed in the Senate by something like 2 votes? That was the last session, and that one had just a few more teeth than 822.

Now we have more (R)s who will vote in favor of this bill, as well as a few extra pro2A (D)s who will likely vote for 2900.

I don't believe it will be 100% partisan, which is why I think it will pass. The biggest hurtle would be getting it attached to an absolutely guaranteed must sign bill because we know that Obama might veto anything else and tell them to go back and do it again without a 2900 in it. This is why we need to start convincing more (D)s and (R)s to stop dividing ideas by party affiliation.

The only (D)s who (quite literally) will kick & scream bloody murder are Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Schumer. We'll get to see them and the BC & LCAV in their truest of colors and just how racist they really are... Just wait & see... :shifty:

Erik.

Don'tBlink
10-14-2011, 8:12 PM
The only (D)s who (quite literally) will kick & scream bloody murder are Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Schumer.

Erik.

Can't wait. It would not just make my day, it would make the rest of my life :) .

Ps. Thanks to all who clarified the wording of the bill. I read it a couple of times and got it wrong. With your help, it makes total sense now :D .

hoffmang
10-16-2011, 10:07 PM
There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene

wildhawker
10-16-2011, 10:36 PM
For all of the reasons you mention, I'm rather surprised NRA isn't pushing 2900... :chris:

-Brandon

There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene

Window_Seat
10-16-2011, 10:39 PM
There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene

But would it moot the 1988 portions of these cases?

As far as the spiny chills... Nevermind, I'll figure it out (in two weeks)... :D

For all of the reasons you mention, I'm rather surprised NRA isn't pushing 2900... :chris:

-Brandon

This might be because GOA is pushing 2900.

Erik.

wildhawker
10-16-2011, 10:47 PM
This might be because GOA is pushing 2900.

Erik.

I think you missed the joke.

-Brandon

cvnhank
10-17-2011, 2:08 AM
Hoffmang,
"The second issue should send chills down your spine."
Is that a good chill or bad chill? Hank

Kharn
10-17-2011, 2:41 AM
If GOA supports something while the NRA & CGF supports a different bill, I'm supporting the NRA & CGF bill without question. GOA is a money-making scam posing as a gun rights group.

hoffmang
10-17-2011, 3:38 PM
Hoffmang,
"The second issue should send chills down your spine."
Is that a good chill or bad chill? Hank

A very, very bad chill.

-Gene