HR 822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

[Hammer99...]

Live video, Its the same ol same ol....


http://houselive.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=2

[photogpat]

http://www.pagunblog.com

Sebastian has some entertaining play-by-play on this over at his site. Kline's a good egg!

[Hammer99...]

Well it passed the house....

[DeanC]

You do understand the purpose of this bill, right?

It's to allow politicians to vote for a pro-gun bill that doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing into law.

[plblark]

Or, in the case of 2 Republicans (not from Communist states) the chance to vote AGAINST a bill...

[Hammer99...]

I don't see Mr Pres signing this into law but I think It could get by the senate. And if it does pass the senate the president is going to piss off a bunch of permit holders heading into an election year. Could end up making a difference at the booth.

[photogpat]

You do understand the purpose of this bill, right?

It's to allow politicians to vote for a pro-gun bill that doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing into law.

I thought it was to drain the Brady Bunch of much needed $$$ and burn political capital campaigning against a bill...

[John S.]

It should really make this poser a one hit wonder!

[ex-LT]

I don't see Mr Pres signing this into law but I think It could get by the senate. And if it does pass the senate the president is going to piss off a bunch of permit holders heading into an election year. Could end up making a difference at the booth.

Considering less than 3% of the general public either has a P2C or lives in a state where a permit is not required, I don't think it will have that much of an effect. Especially when you consider that the majority of permit holders probably wouldn't vote for him anyway.

[Hammer99...]

Considering less than 3% of the general public either has a P2C or lives in a state where a permit is not required, I don't think it will have that much of an effect. Especially when you consider that the majority of permit holders probably wouldn't vote for him anyway.

Your probably right. It's a stretch for what is essentially a non issue but pissed off people are far more motivated to vote then people who don't care. And If you have a repeat of the 2000 election 1% or 2% can make a difference. Just a thought. I'm really not sold either way.

[Lunchbox]

Kinda had this discussion with rukwikenuf, what I don't understand is why can't they make the PTC more like a driver's license? Valid in every state, without all of the over sight of the federal govt. I don't know enough about it to make any claims so I'm posing the question to those of you outhere that do. Thanks for your time.

[EAJuggalo]

In theory, under full faith and credit they already are. However in practice only a couple of states have that view. And that is what this bill will accomplish, with the exception of IL and DC. At some point I'm going to have to read the whole bill to see if they get around possession prohibitions like in NYC.

ETA: They do, the bill specifically includes "political subdivisions of the states" My guess is that it was included only because of NYC.

[mrp]

In theory, under full faith and credit they already are.

"Full faith and credit" does not require one state to honor the drivers license from any other state. (It might apply to the license as a form of identification, but not as a license to drive.) Full Faith and Credit didn't require states to honor the marriage licenses of inter-racial couples. (Due process and Equal protection won the day). But hey, if we can get everyone to agree that the clause applies to carry permits, we can quit arguing about same-sex marriage licenses.

I think this is what allows people to drive in MN without a MN license:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=171.02

171.02 LICENSES; TYPES, ENDORSEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS.
Subdivision 1.License required; duplicate identification restricted.

(a) Except when expressly exempted, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a street or highway in this state unless the person has a valid license under this chapter for the type or class of vehicle being driven.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=171.03

171.03 PERSONS EXEMPT.
The following persons are exempt from license hereunder:
...
(d) A nonresident who is at least 15 years of age and who has in immediate possession a valid driver's license issued to the nonresident in the home state or country may operate a motor vehicle in this state only as a driver.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/235/610/case.html

The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state.
In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And, to this end, it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horsepower of the engines -- a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens, and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

In the case of Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1868), the Court said the following:

It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.

The Court went on to explain that the laws of one state would not become effective in another: "It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States." These sections of Paul v. Virginia are still good law, and were relied upon, for example, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).

[Bump]

I'm surprised that none of you have mentioned in this thread for the potential of a federal data base of permit holders to possibly happen if this is passed. It's being discussed on quite a few other gun forums and the like.

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r-82 ... he-senate/

IN PART

H.R. 822 moves to the Senate
Posted on November 17, 2011 by NAGR Staff

I was right to be concerned.

Not only was H.R. 822 — the Trojan horse gun control bill — passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

[plblark]

The national DB amendment failed IIRC.