JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
NO this is like obama care...

How so? This is a very plain and simply GCA amendment that requires states to treat a permit holder like they would permit one that holds a permit issued to one of their residents. It forces the all states to abide by the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

Why should a carry permit be any different than my drivers license? Thats right it should not be treated any different but states think they have the right to keep me from exercising my right to carry a firearm in their state and infringe on my 14th right of privileges and immunity.
 
Anti fed crew needs to stop huffing the ammonium nitrate and take off your tin foil hats.

This is nothing like Obama care nor does it give the feds anymore control than they already have.

IT JUST FORCES STATES TO RECOGNIZE OTHER STATES LICENSES.

Why is that a bad thing?
 
It is beyond me why a gun owner would not support this legislation. The insane lengths you have to go through just to drive through some states with a gun boggles the mind. Having the ability to slip a pistol into a holster and drive to visit family in either Washington or California without having to go through the whole "Do I take it?, Do I leave it?" routine and "If I take it" securing it to the point of being useless is an example of .gov working for me and not against me. National Reciprocity should be and someday will be the law of the land.
 
I already wrote my congress "person" using the link provided by the NRA. I fully support this bill. And I don't even have a CHL.

A workable solution today is better than a perfect solution some day in the distant future.
 
Mac_Fan, some gun enthusiasts out there (the more paranoid types) see this is a play to bring Concealed Carry under Federal jurisdiction, as a precursor to stricter federal gun control. They read into this that somehow this will allow the federal government to restrict guns more closely down the road.

Others are concerned about its effect on eroding "states rights".

My take on it is that it is a matter of "states should recognize the licenses/permits/contracts of other states," combined with "the second amendment should not be able to be overridden by one state over another." Yeah, the CARRY of guns has been ruled by courts to not be a right, but it should be. And until it is, anything that guarantees MORE freedom should take precedence. HR 822 guarantees more freedom (the freedom to carry a weapon concealed across state lines without having to worry if your license is valid in the new state.)
 
I'm against it primarily because it reinforces the idea that you need a permit of some sort to exercise your right to bear arms. Even if the permits (for now) are issued by the states, and "shall issue" ..... This bill further reinforces the idea that permits are necessary for bearing arms. I don't think we should encourage this idea.


The title is very misleading : "The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act"

If it is right, then no permit is needed. So if it is a right, then no reciprocity is needed.

The title should be: "The National Carry Permit Reciprocity Act"
 
I cannot believe how many people on this forum listen to the Brady bunch and their propaganda. HR 822 is what we can get without the Feds getting their nose into carry...no, there should not be a national permit system, no their should be no need for a state permit system...but that is what we have.

HR 822 just tells the states to treat travelers like they treat their own citizens when it comes to concealed carry licenses...nothing more, nothing less. We are all citizens of our respective states, but we are also citizens of the United States, and as such should be able to travel to other states without restriction. I am all for the feds telling the states, look a permit to carry is no different than a drivers license...respect the other states right to issue, just like respect their right to issue a drivers license.
 
Only an idiot who has a concealed gun permit would be against this legislation.

This just guarantees reciprocity. If another state issues a concealed carry permit, then yours from this state is good there. The Feds aren't involved. The only people against this on the TV right now are from Ill, DC, Calif. etc.
 
This is the problem in a nutshell

Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.

Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.

TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.
 
Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.

Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.

TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.

Congratulations, you can cut/paste. Still doesn't make it a good idea giving CCW to the feds.
 
Hear me out on this

So the government comes in and makes it the same across the nation for carry permits, so it puts it all under 1 single control.

If that is done how hard do you think it would be for the government to "outlaw" firearms to the civilian population? I mean it could happen, get Obama reelected get the house and senate back to the democrats and then go to work behind closed doors just like they are doing with this bill. OR OR why even go to all that trouble with the stroke of the pen to an executive order the President makes it illegal.

OH you say thats against the 2nd ammendment really.... Well if its so against the constitution how come all these cities, such as Portland, Seattle, San Fran and even States can make laws that are illegal? (and don't forget about the universities making rules about chl and ignoring the courts when those are overturned) Because they know the amount of time and money it takes to fight something like this in court is tremendous, but they would defend it with our tax dollars.

It can happen guys its easier than you think.:huh:
 
Congratulations, you can cut/paste. Still doesn't make it a good idea giving CCW to the feds.

How does it give CCW to the Feds? All it does is say that OR has to accept WA permits....just like ID, CA, and every other state. There is nothing else to this. Nothing. There is no "national" standard, no "national" anything. Just like you don't have a "national" driver's license.
 
If you are worried about this being a liberal conspiracy about anything, it's not about gun control. It's about "forcing each state to recognize each other states' legally issued licenses." Such as... Marriage licenses.

If I were a conspiracy-theorist conservative, I'd be more worried that this is a back-door method to force all states to recognize other states same-sex marriages. :-D (Personally, I'm not worried about it, I'm hoping for it.)
 
To all the people supporting this garbage, how hard would it be for the feds to simply declare that handguns have no sporting purpose then use their regulatory power over the states to enforce that decree?

The current federal government is illegitimate and unconstitutional, even acknowledging its power is a mistake.
 
To all the people supporting this garbage, how hard would it be for the feds to simply declare that handguns have no sporting purpose then use their regulatory power over the states to enforce that decree?

The current federal government is illegitimate and unconstitutional, even acknowledging its power is a mistake.

Actually, no, the federal government has it's place. Has it overstepped it's bounds since Wilson and FDR? Yes it has, but that does not mean it does not have a legitimate purpose.
 
Actually, no, the federal government has it's place. Has it overstepped it's bounds since Wilson and FDR? Yes it has, but that does not mean it does not have a legitimate purpose.

It's only legitimate purpose is to protect liberty. While one can consider OC/CC bans to be 2A violations which may warrant federal intervention, reciprocity is not an intervention, it's simply the federal government asserting its dominance over the states and has nothing to do with freeing the citizenry from unjust laws.

Sure it makes some peoples' lives more convenient, but the very act of acknowledging the legitimacy of the federal government simply empowers it to continue its criminal spree.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top