Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

HR 822 Infringes On 2nd Amendment

November 23, 2011 by  

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 is couched as a bill favorable to gun owners. In truth, it’s another insidious misuse of the Constitution’s “commerce clause” and a backdoor assault on the 2nd Amendment.

The feel-good portion of the bill sounds appealing: It forces one State to recognize a concealed carry permit issued in another. But Gun Owners of America has pointed out some of the bill’s flaws:

  • It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-State permit or to push their State to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
  • By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the State level to pass Constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
  • In restrictive “may issue” States, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the State while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
  • The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Also from GOA:

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling HR 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”

Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.

“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, a troubling amendment inserted into the bill instructs the Government Accounting Office to conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement to verify the validity of licenses and permits issued by other States.

While the sponsors of the bill cite the “commerce clause” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution, nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to study the exercising of a right.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where anti-gun Democrats will no doubt do all they can to use the amendment process to further erode the 2nd Amendment.


Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “HR 822 Infringes On 2nd Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Steve

    Funny, I read the bill as passed and didn’t see it that way.

    • Tim

      Wait till it gets to the Senate and watch all the ammendments the anti gun Senate tries to attach to this bill.

      • dan

        I already have a Federal gun permit…it’s called the 2nd amendment.
        It should be recognized in every State in the Union as ALL unalienable
        rights should be recognized.

        • JackBSanD

          Correct Dan, the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to BEAR arms, not to own arms and keep them locked up!

          • AnhydrousBob

            No, we have this right by virtue of living – the right to self defense. The second amendment is there to prevent the Federal Government from infringing this Right. But, alas it is only paper.

          • Brian

            Wrong Jack. The 2nd say we have the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

          • Brian

            And Jack, the 2nd doesn’t give us anything. It protects a natural right that exists with or without the Second Amendment.

        • RalphK.

          You’re absolutely correct, Dan! A citizen should not be required to ask anyones’ permission, whatever the issuing authority, to carry concealed or otherwise. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, guarantees that RIGHT.

          Gun control should NEVER be an issue, period. (Unless you mean that sometimes you need two hands).

          Again you’re right. If they want them, the bad guys will always have guns.

          Keep your powder dry.

    • mkkms

      I agree Steve…..

  • Ben Dover

    It does not “force” Vermonters to do anything….They are still free to carry in their state only….Now , if they “wish” to carry outside, then they must make a “choice”..You folks are seen as Nutty by some people because you like to bend words…just like the other side….

    • Alex Frazier

      Vermonters don’t have to “choose” anything, technically. As it stands right now, someone in Vermont who doesn’t have a permit doesn’t have the legal means to travel to a State that requires one.

      So with or without H.R. 822, a State like Vermont has no reciprocity with other States due to their lack of a permit.

    • Bill

      Ben Dover…. You are still very naive! When you are dealing with Constitutional issues, you MUST consider every word exactly as stated, examining not only each word but the various POTENTIAL meanings in relation to every other word around it. In other words, think like a shyster lawyer, for that is who will be twisting it in to any possible meaning to win his case. (Think ACLU or Bill Clinton – It depends on what the definition of what “is” is). For verification of my statement, do a little research on supreme court cases (that has kept 9 people busy doing just that for over 200 years)!

  • Dan

    Another issue is that once this bill is law what would it take for a Progressive controlled congress to tighten restrictions in it and force state compliance? Gun control should be a state issue only and the federal government should not even be involved in creating gun laws. As stated it is a second amendment right and every time congress messes with our second amendment they gain more and more control. Does anyone really think a state would allow automatic assault weapons to be sold? Does the registration of handguns keep anyone safer from criminals?

    • Alex Frazier

      Dan, this legislation specifically excludes machine guns and explosive devices. States SHOULD be forced to comply, because reciprocity is Constitutional. Gun control is not up to any State. The tenth amendment puts that power solely into the hands of the people. The Federal government has every authority to create legislation pursuant to the Constitution to see to it that its intent is carried out. This attempt to “mess” with the second amendment is actually an attempt to restore Constitutionality. And this bill does not require gun registration.

      • RDF

        Hi Alex,

        I am sorry but you are very much wrong about HR822 being “an attempt to restore Constitutionality”, I assume you mean as to the Second Amendment. First, this bill is based on the interstate commerce clause not the Second Amendment.

        Second, passing a federal bill is not an appropriate means to “restore Constitutionality” that is the purpose of a law suit, and the feds or citizens who believe themselves aggrieved by the state law have a right to file such a law suit. Do you recall the DC vs. Heller and the McDonald cases? Both were citizens suing to vindicate their “constitutional rights”. These cases limited the state’s ability to “infringe” on the citizen’s Second Amendment rights; they did not expand the federal government’s authority over firearms.
        The Second Amendment, like the other first 10 amendments are not “constitutional rights” at all. They are pre-constitutional rights i.e., God given unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights was not intended to change any of these pre-constitutional rights or any of the other rights which were not mentioned.

        Third, by passing this bill the feds will be asserting constitutional authority over possession of firearms and who and how they may be carried, in essence circumventing the Second Amendment with the interstate commerce clause. If the feds can force all states to accept every other state’s permits they can also force no state to except anyone else’s permits. The power to give contains the power to take away.

        They can also regulate how firearms are carried. The current law is that citizens must be allowed to carry openly or concealed i.e. a state cannot outlaw both. (I think this is not a decision any U.S. governments can constitutionally make, it is up to the citizens.) This law in essences puts that decision in the hands of the feds.

        Fourth, the only constitutional directives the feds have regarding firearms are that it has to arm the states’ Militia and it cannot “infringe” the citizens’ right to have firearms, period.
        You see this bill baits a hook with the illusion one will have a Second Amendment right to carry everywhere. It treats a right as a privilege. The federal hook is the feds assertion to control firearms in this matter. As Jefferson said if you cannot take the hook, don’t take the bait.

        NRA acts like this bill if passed will stay stagnate. Well the feds passed the unconstitutional Gun Control Act in 1968, how has that been working out for you? Did it remain stagnate? Clinton’s “assault weapons” ban was just one of the most recent expansions of the authority asserted by the 1968 Act.

        The reality of it is that the NRA is acting with indifference to the Constitution. That is a very, very dangerous and in fact it is treasonous to the Constitution.

        You are right this bill does not require regulation. On the other hand it does not forbid it, and constitutionally cannot. You can be sure it will not be stagnate if passed. What so you think they will do with the study information? Centralize / federalize.
        As Reagan said the scariest words to here are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

        For the sake of Liberty,


    • Tim

      Yes, you can buy “Automatic weapons” in a lot of states. You have to pass a backround check , get your local Sheriff, or chief of police to sign off on you, and pay a $200 federal tax, out of state transfer fees,and or in state transfer fees. The machine gun must be made before 1986.It takes a few months, and you have to buy the gun first, but you can’t get it till it’s OK’d by the ATFE and you get the paper work. You can only buy a machine gun that’s already registered with the ATFE. Only a class 3 (automatic weapon) dealer can buy a newer gun. The permit also go’s for silencers.and rifles with barrels shorter than 16″. The permit only covers that particular gun or silencer.
      Short barreled shotguns,(shorter than 18″) pen guns,and such come under the “any other weapons” license which is $5.

    • RichardF

      Our “right to bear arms” is a Constitutional right, not a State’s individual say-so. You allow such a thing, you now are giving up your individual rights to the elite of each state to regulate YOUR rights as they see fit. If anything, Congress should have put forth a bill that simply states. “The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right which must be respected in all states.” “No individual state, or entity, has the right to restrict any law abiding American citizen from obtaining or carrying a fire-arm, concealed or otherwise.” How simple. These no-nothings in Washington have no brains.

      • Alex Frazier

        Not only do I agree with that, but I wrote to my Representative and said as much about a month ago.

      • Joe H.

        It is a GOD GIVEN right! The constitution only backs up the right we already have!!!

  • Butt Hertz

    This is just another way for the gun hating Obama administration to take away our right to carry arms. Don’t be surprised when the regulations start and carrying a weapon may cost you your freedom. This bill (H.R. 822) is a Trojan Horse!!!

    • Alex Frazier

      Butt, that’s nonsense. This bill has nothing to do with any Federal regulations. And you should know, for the record, that exercising your right to keep and bear arms WILL cost you your freedom NOW if you don’t have the correct paperwork from one State to the next.

      • Bill

        Our president apparently disagrees with you. He and his minions have already issued “laws” requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance with plans to eliminate private insurance companies. He also took over private corporations and got away with it, and shut down our private oil industry. What’s next?

        • Alex Frazier

          I’m speaking in terms of this specific bill, not in terms of what the President will or won’t do against the Constitution that he apparently has little respect for.

      • Butt Hertz

        Hey Alex,
        And who regulates all that paper work you speak of? The states, or the Feds? It will eventually be mandated by the feds to the states. Don’t be so naieve to belive that the feds want nothing to do with this bill. They want everything to do with this bill so that they will eventually have control of America’s weapons. A government that has no fear of it’s citizens is a republic, a government that fears it’s citizens….I think yo know the rest.

  • http://charter howe

    Instead of finding flaws with HR 822 and whinig about it, why not write to your Senator to add a simple amendment excluding Vermont under the stated conditions of not having a carry license and in the other state, they need to bring their legislation up to date which would be what the constiuents would want anyhow. Its not about violating states rights, its about individual freedom for a law abiding citizen to circumvent the myriad of rediculous laws that would be out there to get arrested, fined and imprisoned for a state that wants to avoid what it takes to allow its citizens to abide by the 2nd amenment. To say that Congress is distorting the commerce clause is a mindless statement when you consider that Obamacare took Constitutional rights away from citizens while the reciprococity law reinforces a 2nd amendment right that every citizen already has. Healthcare needed a few small fixes not an Obama overhaul and the same applies to this gun legislation which needs a few small changes by state legislators to get everyone on the same page and it would not be to the detriment of anyone except the criminals who ignore the rule of law. Explain to me why I should give my constitutional right up to lawfully carry a concealed weapon or risk being arrested, fined and imprisoned. Illinois is the only state that does not allow anyone except criminals to carry a gun and check out the gun violations in Chicago, which are the highest in the nation. Distorting the commerce clause is a rediculous talking point which could only be made by one of the radical anti-gun advocates who worry about lawfully armed citizens.

    • Tim

      Vermont citizens aren’t required to take any training like the states with licenses. In Ohio you are required to do 12 hours of training on gun safety, and the laws, and qualify on the pistol range.You must “fear for your life” before you can shoot, and if you are wrong you’re going to jail for a really long time. People with no training shouldn’t be able co carry in public

      • Brian

        “…shall not be infringed.”

        Tim, What you suggest is an infringement. Also, not every state that issues a license requires training. I live in Indiana and just had to pass a background check for mine. And in some states past military service, even decades ago, counts as the required training. And believe it or not, not everyone in the military does a lot of shooting. I did more the last time I went to the range than I did in four years in the Navy.

      • Chas

        Tim, the 2nd ammendment is clear and spicific. by your take it would be comparable to one’s right to free speach not being able to exercise the right till one has taken 12 hours of English classes. I own and have a carry permit. if one want to take my life first, no classes will teach me what i need to know to survive. act fast in response.

  • john

    To Rep. Justin Amash and Rep. Rob Woodall, your thinking and your willingness to do something constructive about protecting the 2nd admendment rights of “WE THE PEOPLE” who are law abiding {citizens} is commendable. I am now retired, but spent 27 years of my life as a police officer. The majority of those years were spent as a one man unit, from Waco,Tx. to the Rio Grande Valley,including patrolling the “river”. I cannot count the number of times a legally armed, CHL holder came to my aid and assisted me when the odds were, in some cases four to one. I might possibly not be alive today if it were not for these legally armed “citizens”.So to Reps. AMASH and WOODAL,L I say thanks for your support of our constitional and God given right to keep and bear arms.

  • JJM

    There should be no need for HR 822. In fact the requirement for Carry Permit is a breach of our 2nd Amend. To me, the right to keep and bear arms means that I should be able to carry concealed or visible at any time unless I am a felon or insane. Permits and registrations offer a ‘hit list’ as depicted in “Red October”.

  • Doug

    I have a New York carry permit (one of the hardest to get in the country) and am tired of breaking the law whenever I go to my kids homes in different states. I will remember to call Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) when I get sent to jail in Maryland for ileagle carrying. Maybe he will come to Maryland and explane the second amendment to the folks there. Or maybe he will foot the bill when I need a lawyer to save my freedom. You guys who are supposed to be on our side are idiots!! The rerality is that wherever I go out of NY I am braking the states law. That is the results of states rights. Sure the Constitution trumps the states but no one has told them that yet. That is why we need HR822 to force the states to recognise the second amendment. What is the matter with you black helocopter folks. Sometimes the folks in congress might be trying to do something right!! Let’s give it a try. If you want to squalk about something try Sen Schumer of my state NY introducing a MONSTER bill to congress, or maybe wonderful Hillary with this UN monster. Give us law abiding folks a brake and pass this bill clean of negative amendments and let us go around our country with safety from the police!!
    BTW – Nothing will change in Vermont & Arizona!! They will still have the same rights they have right now. Also – I don’t believe it hurts to have some sort of permit system in a state. Do you really want a violent felon able to walk into any gun store and purchasing anything he wants? Really???

    • Alex Frazier

      A violent felon couldn’t walk into a gun store and buy anything. The Brady Bill prevents the purchase, possession, transport, or receipt of a firearm by a convicted felon, someone adjudicated mentally unstable by a court, or someone convicted of a violent misdemeanor.

      The permit has nothing to do with acquisition of a firearm, only the legal carrying of it. Felons don’t waste their time getting permits.

      • Tim

        I;m not worried about felons, they don’t care about the laws anyway.Thats why we have concealed carry. I’m worried about people who never touched a gun before. A permit is about training, safety, and knoledge of the law.You can’t shoot the guy who’s stealing your flat screen tv.If you do, engoy your life behind bars.

        • Brian

          Please stop imposing Ohio law on everyone. If someone enters my home in Indiana I have the legal right to shoot as long as I feel threatened at the time. And at that point it becomes my word against the intruder’s who made the mistake of illegally entering my home and is lying dead on the floor where he had no right to be.

          • Joe H.

            AMEN!!!! I spent over seven years in the army 18 months in RVN, and have been around guns all my life. I qualified expert on the m-14, the m-16, and sharpshooter on 38 and 45. now I don’t know weapons??? Give me a break!!!

          • Chas

            Brian, you are right. In PA, where I come from, a law has been passed that says if an intruder is in your home, that’s proof enough that you can defend yourself and what’s yours. Good law. If the person has the brass to break into your home, he’ll do to you what ever it takes to get away with your property and or take your life. A man’s home is his Castle and you have a right to defend yourself and what’s yours.

      • Anna Smith

        Felons don’t BUY GUNS! They STEAL guns to hurt innocent people who DON’T HAVE GUNS! This is why we NEED guns – to defend ourselves against people who steal them and don’t give a whit about the “law.” These people will get guns ANY WAY THEY CAN. They don’t care about “laws.” And with the help of Eric Holder, it’s been made even easier for many of them to OBTAIN guns. WIth criminals out there who will get guns any way they can, and a government no longer protects us, but actually abuses us ………
        think about it.

  • Floyd

    Th NRA searches out these attacks on our 2nd ammendment. If this had of been against our carry rights they would have pushed to kill this bill. They have the best legal teams in the world this is their job to search out infringements on our gun rights. If they Found something that hurts gun owners it would have been stopped in its tracks. If we lose our gun rights the NRA loses their jobs too and that ain’t going to happen. I think they do a great job other than sending too much mail.

    • Anna Smith

      News Flash. The NRA is no longer on the side of gun owners. There are a couple of other “gun clubs” out there that actually are on the side of gun owners. I would never support the NRA. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. It was good when Charlton Heston was in charge, but after that, it went downhill.

    • Brian

      What Anna said. Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation do far more for gun owners than does the NRA. The NRA, at best, is a lobby for gun makers.

    • JC

      I lost faith in the NRA a while back. Seems they have some ulterior political motives other than the 2nd amendment.
      Endorsing Harry(the rat)Reid was the last straw for me.

      • Joe H.

        read the article by the executive vice president of the NRA Wayne LaPierre in the Dec. 2011 issue on page 40. Might bring a little of your faith back.

  • Alex Frazier

    Bob …

    I’ve gone ’round and ’round with some people over this.

    On your bulleted list:

    • Residents of a state that don’t require a permit won’t be required to obtain an out-of-State permit to carry in their state. Section 926D.(a).(2) provides for the exclusion. The goal in 926D.(a) is to allow reciprocity. The exclusions in 926D.(a).(1-2) are to prohibit individuals living in a stricter state, like Illinois (which doesn’t permit concealed carry at all), from obtaining a permit in Kentucky for use in Illinois, and to exclude the need for a permit in a state like Alaska that does not require one at all under their current State legislation.

    • H.R. 822 does not require a permit for reciprocity. State laws make such a permit necessary. There is nothing in the bill to prohibit any State from pursuing Constitutional legislation. With or without a permit, you can still carry in states like Alaska. This bill would force states like California, for example, to recognize the validity of my South carolina permit under Article I, § 1 of the Constitution, which obliges them to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. In other words, this bill would force Constitutionally protected reciprocity to be recognized in States that are ignoring the privileges of United States citizens protected by the Constitution.

    • “May Issue” States are infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Equal protection of the laws does not mean that you disarm the rest of us, but that you arm those whom you’ve been denying the right.

    • I don’t disagree that this bill is a psuedo misuse of the Commerce Clause. Commerce has nothing to do with it. However, any effort to restore our Constitutional rights in States where they have been infringed, in my opinion, gives justification to the means for the end. The fact is, our right to keep and bear arms shouldn’t be infringed upon, and in many States they have been long since. If we can’t get these States to respect the Constitution, then anything we can do to override their Unconsitutional legislation is a positive.

    Now, concerning the Representatives you quoted, let me say that I don’t disagree with them. The second amendment is technically all any of us should need. There are likewise other aspects of the Constitution that provide for it. We should be able to carry openly, and unmolested, in any State of the United States. However, those points have been ignored, and just as the fourteenth amendment is, for the most part, a reiteration of Article IV, § 2, ¶ 1 concerning the respect and preservation of citizen privileges in every state, so too would this be a reiteration of Article IV, § 1 for reciprocity between the States.

    I don’t disagree that the legislation is superfluous, but if it is in accordance with, and supportive of the existing Constitutional rights and values, then we shouldn’t have a problem with it if it gets the job done that the existing clauses have not.

    Concerning the ability to verify permits, I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with this. If the citizens of the United States are willing to obtain a permit to carry instead of protesting and demanding their uninfringed rights, then there should be no objection to its validity being checked if you present it to law enforcement in another State. If, in other words, we are agreeable to the Unconstitutional measure of obligatory permits, then it is hypocritical to object to the measure of checking those permits. It is not the exercising of our right that they are checking, per se, but the ability of law enforcement to check the validity of the document we’ve agreed to obtain in order to exercise our right.

    The fact is, with forty-eight states allowing concealed carry, and roughly forty-six of them with their own permits, each different from the other, there needs to be a way to make sure such a permit presented to law enforcement is not counterfeit. Police have a hard enough time with driver’s licenses from fifty states.

    So for all the hype against H.R. 822, if you read it, you’ll find that it does one thing, and one thing only. It forces states to recognize permits from other states. But it does nothing to alter the laws of any of those states. In South Carolina, I can carry any handgun I choose. If I travel to California, they will be forced to recognize my South Carolina permit. However, I am forced to abide by their State laws, which means that whatever handfun I’m carrying better be on their approved firearms list. If I travel to Illinois, I still have to stash my gun under a bush at the Kentucky/Illinois border. If I travel to Alaska, I won’t need my permit at all.

    As it presently stands, I can’t carry in California. With South Carolina and New Hampshire permits, I can carry in about forty-two states, or thereabouts, and I have to abide by the concealed carry laws of any of the States I travel to. All this bill will do is add States like California to the list of States I can travel to with my concealed weapon, in which I must abide by the State laws.

    This law is virtually nothing. It’s not a trojan horse. There is no open backdoor. It doesn’t require a federal permit or ID. Nor does it create a gun owner database, but merely accesses a permit database, which can be accessed twenty-four seven already anyway.

    AND, I might add, that the notion proposed by some that it usurps States rights is a sham.

    NOTE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS: States don’t have any rights when it comes to firearms.

    • The second amendment guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms without infringement. Under this amendment neither the State nor the Federal government has the authority to make any law concerning the keeping or bearing of arms, concealed or otherwise.

    • Article IV, § 2, ¶ 1 guarantees that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States. So no State has the right to deny us our right to keep and bear arms since it is a privilege of the citizen.

    • The fourteenth amendment prohibits the States from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Under this amendment, anti-gun laws, specifically at the State level in this case, are not permitted.

    • Article VI, ¶ 2 declares the Constitution, under which the second and fourteenth amendments and Article IV, § 2, ¶ 1 all fall, to be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every State are bound by it, regardless of any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State. So even if a State makes a law, it is moot if it is in opposition to the Constitution of the United States.

    It is also worth mentioning that the tenth amendment would demonstrate that powers not delegated to the Federal government, nor those prohibited by the Constitution to the States, belong to the people. In this case, the Federal government was NOT delegated the power over our firearms, but was in fact prohibited from infringing on that right. The States WERE directly prohibited by the Constitution from making or enforcing any laws that abrided our privileges as citizens.

    That makes all decisions concerning the keeping and bearing of arms solely the authority of the people.


    In closing, there is, again, simply too much hype concerning H.R. 822. After carefully reading it and watching the floor debates in the House, I have concluded that the only thing it’s going to do is permit me to carry my firearm in places like California, albeit under the restrictions of their State laws.

    Let the legislation pass, or don’t. It’s not going to make much of a difference. I’ll get to carry in like two extra States, and in exactly the same manner as I can now. If we’re going to fight it, let’s at least fight it for the right reasons. Let’s fight to eliminate all State gun laws, because the authority over our guns belongs to us, not the State, and certainly not the Federal government.

    • Anna Smith


    • Dan Moore

      HR 822 does not force states that have no right to carry laws to accept your permit. It is best to avoid that state or leave your gun at home when you go there.

      • Alex Frazier

        If I miscommunicated myself, it was my intent to say that States without the right to carry would not be affected. I had said: “If I travel to Illinois, I still have to stash my gun under a bush at the Kentucky/Illinois border.”

        So, yes, you’re absolutely right. H.R. 822 does not give you the legal authority to carry in states that do not have a permit or allow concealed carry.

    • Chas

      Alex, you couldn’t be mor RIGHT and clear. good job. well said. Vermonter’s and Alaskan’s only need to show say a drivers license that they are residents of a state that does not require a carry permit. i think the trouble with having to try and pass a law like this in the first place that they are trying to make a clear issue, difficult. the 2nd ammendment gives us all the right to carry, when and where ever. state laws do NOT supercede Constitutional rights/laws.

  • jerry sweet

    whine and cry,cower,beg and plead,and what? write my senator.he is the obama crowd.we have a right to have guns and no fed has the right to even put their filthy hands on states rights.with that said GOD and GUNS gave us this once proud nation.oops we kicked HIM out!!you dont like some of us expressing dismay over the stuff the feds are doing to ours so called rights.get out of my you dont have a freedom of speech right when you use it to blast another of our freedoms.go live in china.oh wait they’er coming here,i momentarily had a lapse in common sense.dont know what that is find a person who speaks for AMERICA you might learn!!

  • jerry sweet

    what do you get when all you have are liberals who want us destroyed.thats right you have politicians.guess what is destroying this nation,right from the beginning politics.politcians have the most fun grabbing and bagging all the goodies for their own selfish motives.our entire system is run by liars,thieves,cons,GOD hating libs and every sort of fowl imagination they can lay their hands the name of— we the— against them –the people!—another definition of raging insanity is simply this,liberal thinking

    • NRAlifer

      I think you need to cut back on the coffee!!!

      • Old Man Jack

        Yes , cut back on the coffee , and ” have a nice cup of tea . Then we can discuss your knitting and GAY brother . lol

  • s c

    Our treasonous weasels will give up on the idea of scrapping the 2nd Amendment. They’ll decide that the only way to press the issue is to demand that each state (with the help of the military and local police) confiscate ALL weapons.
    Then, our treasonous filth will have to ‘disappear’ for a while, because it will be open season on all of them. Some people don’t seem to mind that we get enslaved via more laws and more laws and more laws. Folks, when those in power won’t enforce laws already on the books, you shouldn’t have to be an Einstein to know that protecting the law and the American people is the last thing on their criminal minds. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, whether he’s elected, appointed or “none of the above.”

  • Big Woody

    What is the need for HR-822? The second amendment, as ratified by Congress says “…..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Any regulations Congress or state governments comes up with clearly violate the 2nd Amendment Write your Congresspeople and remind them of this.

    • Alex Frazier

      The problem is that writing your congressman about your second amendment rights is pointless when you drive through Illinois and suddenly find yourself convicted of a felony carrying a five year sentence because you exercised your second amendment right. The Illinois legislative body doesn’t care if you object. The cop doesn’t care if you declare you have a right. The jury will still find you guilty. And the judge will sentence you regardless of the United States Constitution.

      There are only two solutions. Push laws and legislation that uphold our rights, or take up arms and MAKE it right by marching 100,000 strong on the Capitol with loaded rifles.

      • Bill


        You are between a rock and a hard place until the citizens of the Great State of Illinois can eliminate the political corruption through out the state.

        And we as US citizens as related to the US Congress are not totally exempt from that same rock and hard place!

  • Harold

    Millions have died in countries around the world, when the citizens were dis-armed. The commies in Washington are trying the same thing in the USA.

  • Rachelle

    There is no need for namecalling just because someone else thinks differently than we do. Whether we’re on the same team or not, debate is healthy and essential to a free America and for clarifying thought and points. Not one of our Founding Fathers came up with a perfect system by himself. It took debate, and a LOT of it to get the Constitution as perfect as it is. Lets quite dividing ourselves, lets work together for Liberty!
    And I like the idea of exempting not Vermont itself, which would not apply equally to all Americans, but considering that residents of states that do not require carry permits as having the right to carry in other states as well.
    Side point: secular and biblical history shows repeatedly that when a people (forget their God and) become an immoral nation, they invite bondage upon themselves from the outside or from their own government. When a people do not have a concept of agency given to them by God and trying to live up to his standards, the governmental laws become increasingly constrictive to control the people because they will not control themselves. I do not advocate giving up the struggle against a tyrannical government, but perhaps we ought to spend at least an equal amount of time and energy trying to become a better people.

  • Dave

    I also live in New York state, and hold a concealed carry permit. Reguardless of what the 2nd ammendment says, NY does not honor it!

    They do not currently recognize any other states permits…period.
    I do have a Pa. out of state permit, but I also like to travel, and have friends and family in Maryland. This bill forces states like NY and MD to comply with what is reasonable. Our reps. from the New York city area don’t understand what legal concealed carry mean. One went so far as to say that this bill would cause concern for public safety, because anybody could carry.
    She has it all backwards! An armed society is a polite society. Look at where the majority of gun crimes are commited in the state.
    That’s right…. NYC! These fools don’t realize that these crimes are commited by thugs who didn’t buy these guns legally.
    Letting law abiding citizens carry guns does not increase crime, it makes the rate go down.
    Some people might still get shot, but the odds go up that it will be the bad guys for a change.
    I say bravo for the reps. that voted to take a step foreward for a change!
    As far as Vermont, why not have a special designation on the driver’s lisence of the people that wish to carry out of state?
    It’s a state document that can be proven valid, and nobody has to feel that they have been wronged.

    • Julius

      Well all I have to say is that with the TSA and all the other criminals and all the other so called threats we need to be protected from I just cant rap my head around all this crap we need more want to be cops 9/11 would not have ever happened if all law abiding gun owners was aloud to carry on a plane train or bus this crap would stop and crime would go down as well but that is to easy and makes more sense and we as the people would still have are rights

  • AnhydrousBob

    Gotta agee, Bob. The technicalities are moot if you consider the Federalies are treading on states RIGHTS.

  • Anna Smith

    Could this just be another form of “REGISTRATION?” Will they now make a NATIONAL REGISTRY so that when you travel from state to state, ALL STATES will now have a record of EVERYONE in EVERY STATE who has a conceal and carry permit? Will the true “reciprocity” be states exchanging information with each other on ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONCEAL AND CARRY permit in their respective state? I wouldn’t be surprised if they already have a NATIONAL DATA BASE with the names of all people who carry concealed in all states anyway. They probably have a NATIONAL DATA BASE of the owners of ALL GUNS, because, at least in CA, if you buy a gun, your info goes to the DOJ. Now what do THEY do with that info? If you, for instance, live in a state where you “don’t have to register your firearms,” why then, when you go to buy a gun do they want to know WHAT KIND OF GUN you are buying, your STREET ADDRESS, your FINGERPRINTS, etc. Does that sound like you are NOT “Registering” your gun? Not to me. It sounds to me like they SAY you don’t have to “register” your gun, but that they are more than likely taking all of this information and putting it in a NATIONAL DATA BASE so that they know where to go when they get ready to confiscate guns. Any time Congress does something for our “benefit,” I get very suspicious. They almost always have an evil ulterior motive.

    • HOG

      Anna Smith-You are 100% correct. I have been telling people for yrs that the NICS ck is a register. Does anybody think, with what has been going on forever (commie and muzzie infiltration) I’ve seen for my 48 yrs, that the phone ck ends there? Please. Ist call was registered, and so are the rest. –HOG

  • RightGunner

    The parties to the Constitution are 1) The people, 2) the States, and 3) The Federal Government which includes the Federal Government’s three parts, Legislative, Administrative and Judicial.

    The first amendment to the Constitution deals only with Congress, in “Congress shall make no law”. The second amendment deals with the entire Federal Government and the States and the people, protecting the people’s right from infringement by the Federal Government or the States, in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

    Any Constitutional laws that are passed referring to the keeping or bearing or arms must not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is no need to use any other part of the Constitution besides the Second Amendment to legitimize them. Any attempt to require legitimization from another part of the Constitution is a Trojan Horse to provide a future avenue to use the proposed unnecessary legitimization as a precedent to force other laws onto the States or the People.

    The Gun Owners of America and a few others have pointed this out way back as far as the Heller decision, and for which we may rue the day Heller’s precedent was set. Lets not let it happen again, no matter what the good parts of the legislation may include.

  • GDB

    In my little town one can carry NON concealed just like I used to do in Arizona. What makes me wonder is why can I NOT carry concealed in the state of Illinois ? The (in my opinion) Obama run state has always been a pain with any kind of firearm. I know, I USED to live there. I only hope I can NOW travel into IL to see my kids and bring my damn gun with me !!

    • Dan Moore

      Not yet. Not until Illinois has a permit system too.

  • J. L. Marsh


    To all, whatever your race, color or creed.
    Dare to take heed,
    of those who have stood
    in quiet disobedience
    just as the rest of us should.
    We must not allow the engagement of a new
    “civil war a cultural war,”* hy-jack our birthright;
    to think and say what is in our hearts.
    We must still trust
    the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside of all of us!
    That is what made this nation
    arise from the wilderness it once was.
    Todays “Political Correctness”
    infringes on my rights and yours; our FREEDOM.
    Our freedom of speech and thought!
    Freedom to write.
    Freedom to feel and see
    and know what is right!
    Those in “control,” “the liberal media,”
    are throwing the blame, “passing the buck”
    of our childrens’ woes and violence
    on those who manufacture or own
    Those who push “political correctness,”
    this mindless “cultural revolution.”
    Hug a child, and you could be charged with sexual harassment!
    Dare to discipline, teach respect
    only to be accused of abuse!
    What about prayer in public schools?
    “They” say it is unconstitutional.
    I doubt that!
    Show me, where the original document
    says that?
    I chose to stand and I hope you will too,
    in quiet disobedience.

    Children today complain that
    saluting the Flag and pledging their
    allegiance to this Nation
    is just another form
    of “brainwashing.”
    Yes. They are right, “brainwashing” of this “mindless,” “politically correct,”
    “cultural revolution!”
    Stand firm, guard your Constitutional Rights
    because there are those who would abolish
    Amendments one by one.
    If one is lost, soon another until all are gone.
    Your freedoms’ being forever lost!
    “Follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history.”
    Disobediences “that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants,
    and yes,
    in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms
    and a few great men,
    by God’s grace, built this country!”*

    Jacquelyn L. Marsh
    April 22, 1999

    Inspired by Charlton Heston, President of the National Rifle Asso., and his
    speech to the Harvard Law School Forum, Feb. 16, 1999. “Winning The Cultural
    War.” *Direct quotations.

  • Ken

    The powers to be in Califonia have already stated that if this bill is passed the State of California will not recognize out of state permits that are held by citizens of the State. That simply will take away the rights of Califonians under this proposed bill.

    • Alex Frazier

      It would be incredibly awesome if California objected to a piece of Constitutional legislation designed to secure our rights. If they ignore the law and refuse to recognize the permits, the case will go to the Supreme Court. Then we can get this gun stuff cleared up once and for all.

  • Dan Moore

    HR 822 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment rights. It only says that states with concealed carry permits recognize other states permits. You still have to abide by the laws of the states you are traveling in, just like your drivers license. Your drivers license that has been issued by your state is recognized by other states, but you still have to obey their laws when traveling. The house has passed HR 822 without the gun grabber’s amendments.

  • Dan Moore

    One more point. States that have no permits will not be forced to recognize your permit. So, don’t go to California. If you go, lock your gun up or leave it in a secure place to retrieve it when you leave.

  • DavidWallace

    It’s all a big waste of time to me. Laws passed to enforce the law of the land because it wasn’t being enforced. There are way too many laws on the books already. Seems to me if they are ignoring the 2nd Amendment what makes you think they won’t ignore the new law? And the FedGov telling the States what to do never sits well with me in the first place. If we just followed The Constitution we wouldn’t have problems like concealed carry ‘reciprocity’. Enforce the laws we have rather than adding more complexity and possibly loopholes. Besides I don’t trust anything the FedGov does, especially if they saw it’s for my benefit.

  • oldbill

    The 2nd Amendment, like all rights, are ink on paper….just like our money. Our rights have long since washed away in the rain of liberal legislation.


    There is a much better bill to support than H.R.822. The H.R.2900 SAFE act of 2011 uses as its basis the 2nd. amendment instead of using the commerce clause to enforce it. I feel it is much more defensible in a court challenge than H.R.822.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.