HR 822 Passes House : Reciprocity a Step Towards Rational Gun Regulations

COMMENTARY | In 2004, a concealed carry reciprocity bill, HR 990, ended its useful life stuck “in committee” as the 108th Congress ended its session. This bill, if made law, would have enabled licensed concealed carry firearm permit holders in one state in the U.S. to enjoy those rights in any other state that issues permits. HR 990 (the so-called S.A.F.E. bill), had very similar wording to the current bill HR 822, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, with a bipartisan majority of 272 to 154.

HR 822 stipulates that any lawful holder of a concealed carry permit in one state will retain the right to carry in any other state which also issues concealed carry permits or does not prohibit concealed carry. What it doesn’t do is authorize federal interference in state gun laws. The state permit-issuing laws will remain the same should this bill become law. The mandate is only that states recognize and honor the permits of other states, much like the driver’s license system. In a rare show of bipartisan cooperation, the bill was sponsored by a Republican (Cliff Stearns of Florida) and a Democrat (Heath Shuler of North Carolina). HR 822 moves on to the Senate and perhaps the gauntlet of President Obama.

So what is so different today? Why did an essentially identical bill perish in Committee Hell in 2004 and pass the House of Representatives with flying colors in 2011? It is my opinion that the ground has been sowed in the United States for the official recognition of self-reliance. Our cherished institutions have fallen on (very) hard times, along with the rest of us in this Great Recession. When a city like Camden, N.J., is forced to lay off half its police force, who will protect the citizens? Overwhelmingly, the citizens and their representatives seem to be plumping for self-reliance.

Recently in Pennsylvania, the state legislature voted to extend the so-called “castle doctrine” that stipulates a citizen’s right to use deadly force in his or her home. Now, the castle travels with the king. A citizen in Pennsylvania may use deadly force in any location that he or she has the legal right to occupy, including locations outside the home. Over two dozen states have expanded the castle doctrine to remove the “requirement to retreat” to the best of one’s ability before using deadly force.

It seems that it took a major economic crisis and the threat of imminent breakdown of our social institutions to open the eyes of the lawmakers to the fact that restrictive gun laws only hurt the innocent, the law-abiding citizen who is in need of protection and is getting less and less of it in our modern fragmented society.

Not all states are straight “shall issue” states that will issue permits to anyone who meets the basic criteria. California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii all have “may issue” permit systems, which means the state can issue permits when it sees fit, which isn’t very often. Illinois and the District of Columbia are still holdouts, denying their residents the opportunity to obtain a CCW permit or carry a weapon outside the home at all. Only recently, Wisconsin went from being a “permit denied” state to a “shall issue” state, and this is putting pressure on Illinois to follow suit, although that hasn’t happened yet.

The Supreme Court has also been weighing in on the side of the gun owners lately, which had not been so much the case when HR 990 made its feeble appearance in 2003. In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

While incidents of shocking gun violence still occur regularly, the overall statistics point to a marked decrease in gun-related violence throughout the United States. One notable exception is the District of Columbia, which peaked at the No. 1 position for 2010 at 16 firearms murders per 100,000 people. You’ll recall that D.C. absolutely prohibits the carrying of firearms outside the home. Obviously that law isn’t working out for D.C., and the rest of the nation is beginning to wake up to the myth that restrictive gun control laws reduce crime. It is the other way around.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *