Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Carry Law that would force states to recognize each others CWPs up for vote

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Manzoli7, Nov 13, 2011.

  1. Manzoli7


    Apr 6, 2010
    Got an NRA voice mail alert saying HR822 is up for vote in congress this week starting tommorrow. It would force each state to let you carry if you have a CWP in your home state. I can see good and bad things about this. Although it would be handy if you are traveling does this not bring up the states rights isue? If this is constitutional could they pass a federal law latter saying states canot isue you a CWp at all? This could be to get the federal governments nose in the tent to regulate CWP.

    Am I thinking too much and making it more complicted than it is?
  2. xmanhockey7


    Dec 6, 2010
    This is 100% constitutional! It def deals with interstate commerce even more so than many of the gun control laws dealing with firearms. This is a good bill for firearm owners especially those of us who carry. And you do not need a resident permit to benefit from this. If you live in lets say Illinois where they do not issue permits if you get a FL CCW then you can carry in the other 49 states. With a permit from your home state you could carry every state except Illinois.

    This will be on the house floor Tuesday. Email your reps. While it may not pass the Senate we need to AT LEAST try.

    Facts sheet about H.R.822

  3. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    Jun 15, 2011
    Eh.... I don't see good things coming about this bill if it's passed, in the long run.

    ....And I'm not talking about "blood in the streets".....
  4. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  5. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.

    "Interstate commerce?"

    Thats a liberal tactic. And its crap. Don't stoop to their level. This has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

    I think its yet another encroachment on states' rights based on court rulings that have given states the power to govern their own firearms laws to an extent. I don't support coercing states into this.
  6. I guess the only thing I dont understand about the issue, is that, for example.. other Bill of Rights issues wouldnt be regulated at the state level..

    For example.. if some state passed a law banning a particular religion or say the freedom of speech, it would be a Constitutional issue that the State (I dont believe) has the right to regulate...

    If a State says "You no longer have the right to a trial by your peers if you deal drugs" that would infringe on the Bill of Rights and not be allowed...

    Why is this different?
  7. LApm9

    LApm9 Silver Member

    Apr 3, 2006
    South Louisiana
    The underlined is what would concern me. I can pretty much avoid "CCW unfriendly" states if I want to, but I can't avoid the Federal Government as easily. I would fear that the feds would then establish "minimum standards".

    This is very similar to the marriage issue and (less controversially) drivers licenses. The only thing I would support would be if the legislation established the carrying, while passing through, as an act of interstate commerce, and thus, outside of the state's purview. Allowing you to carry while visiting would be too much of an intrusion into the state's rights.

    "It's a trap!!!!"????
  8. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    Only a handful of the least free states would benefit. As I live in one of the most free states, gun-wise, it's just potential for the feds to screw me.
  9. jpa

    jpa CLM

    May 28, 2001
    Las Vegas NV
    That's the point. When you travel to another state, you're engaging in interstate commerce. You pay for gas, you spend money on a hotel, you go sightseeing at the world's largest ball of twine, you go out for dinner and drinks, etc. That is interstate commerce at its simplest form. Just like driving from point a to point b and crossing state lines doesn't require you to have a different driver's license for every state. CCW permits should be recognized by every state just as if they had been issued in that state. There's no federal standard for driver's licensing nor is there a federal agency that issues special driver's licenses to cross state lines. If the system works for Driver's Licenses, why can't it work for CCW permits too?
  10. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002
    Doesn't matter if it passes in the House cause "King" Harry will never let it come to a vote in the Senate! There are 150 House bills that he has refused to let come to a vote! It's dead before it's passed.:steamed: Besides with the Dumocrat majority in the Senate it would never pass there!:faint:
  11. Atomic Punk

    Atomic Punk

    Mar 11, 2008
    i like the look of it on its face, and i would probably vistit people in ca more often if it works as it appears it would. but i expect it would end up making things worse for ccw.
  12. arushus

    arushus Biggest Member

    Jul 22, 2011
    NE Oklahoma
    Im all for it as long as it is very short and sweet and doesnt leave an open door for the fedgov to start legislating firearms anymore than it already has. Like, "Each state must recognize the other states issuance of concealed carry permits." There, one sentence and we're done, no other if's, and's or but's. I realize it cant be that simple, itd be really nice if it were though...
  13. John Rambo

    John Rambo Raven

    Feb 15, 2010
    Tampa, Fl.

    I think it was crap when they pulled that with the Heart of Atlanta motel (with good intentions, of course) and I think its crap that they're pulling that now (with equally good intentions, we hope).
  14. As much as I would like to have the ability to carry anywhere, this bill would let the Fed camel get its nose into the tent as far as having a national registry and setting standards. They would no doubt raise the bar pretty high.

    It's a noble cause, but it's a bad bill.
  15. F350


    Feb 3, 2005
    The Wyoming Plains
    I agree, I do not see legitimate interstate commerce involvement.....Now Full Faith and Credit IS!!!
  16. Is there a Senate equivalent?
  17. jpa

    jpa CLM

    May 28, 2001
    Las Vegas NV
    travel is a form of commerce.
  18. Glotin


    Aug 16, 2011
    To those of you saying it interferes with States Rights:

    Disregarding commercial traffic (Truck Drivers), how is this any different than a driver's license?
  19. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    That's a good point... (even though I don't like this bill)....

    However, think of it this way... .Here in Indiana, you can turn left on red, only if you are going from a One Way street onto another One Way street, and it is not posted "No Turn on Red"...

    Now, lets say I go to New York City, I do this and I'll probably just get a ticket (remember, to my knowledge, this bill makes no distinction between May Issue and Shall Issue states). I go to NY, and I accidentally get lost and end up in NYC (where firearm possession is illegal without special permits)... I end up in jail facing serious felony charges.

    This law is "OK", but remember, it doesn't just give you a pass to carry when you're traveling through states not named Illinois... You still need to be very familiar with their laws, etc..

    Also, I wonder if any "May Issue" states, would become "No Issue" states, due to this law? Remember, some states are May issue, despite the fact they very very rarely issue permits (NJ, Mass, etc.)

  20. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    Yes you are making too much out of it, as are most of the people against it. Read the NRA's stance on this bill. It will answer your questions.