View Full Version : Gun Rights: I need Ron Paul's stance on H.R. 822 : National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act

03-21-2012, 10:37 AM
Ron Paul did not vote on this act when it passed. He may have been on the campaign trail. I need a direct statement from him on the issue.

I think this bill is dangerous to gun owners and want to know where he stands. Any information would be appreciated.

Sketchy proponents:
The NRA is in favor of the bill but that does not instill confidence in me.
It is now co-sponsored by gun-grabbing Sen. Richard Lugar.

Trustworthy opponents:
The National Association for Gun Rights opposes this: Trojan Horse Gun Bill moves forward (http://www.nationalgunrights.org/trojan-horse-moves-forward/)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) opposes it: Statement on H.R. 822 (https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=288761084496638)

Update: Rand Paul co-sponsored it.... us-senators.com (http://us-senators.com/2012/03/senators-thune-and-vitter-introduce-reciprocity-bill/)

Ron Paul = ??? :confused:

03-21-2012, 01:34 PM
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Am I understanding the bill correctly? It would permit say, a resident of PA to take their gun with them to NY. If this is a federal law telling the states what to do wouldn't Ron oppose it? Or it could be traveling residents have a right to protect themselves?

03-21-2012, 02:42 PM
Here's Amash's (awesome) explanation from his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=288761084496638). I suspect (hope) RP would analyze it similarly.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the people. The defense of this right is essential to safeguarding our other liberties. That is why I opposed H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing and reciprocity. If enacted, this legislation will hurt gun rights.

I have staunchly defended the right to keep and bear arms in both my public life and my private life. In the Michigan state House, I was one of only six Representatives to cosponsor legislation to eliminate gun-free zones, which empower criminals and punish law-abiding citizens. I am an Endowment Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). I have a concealed pistol license.

Upon entering office as a Representative in Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And H R 822 is unconstitutional.

Forty states have entered into agreements to recognize each other's concealed carry permits. In fact, without any federal interference, Michigan has achieved full reciprocity with every other "shall issue" state. H R 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, unconstitutionally applies the Commerce Clause to overturn those agreements and require each state to recognize the permits issued by every other state.

It is important to note that H R 822 is neither premised on, nor properly drafted to comport with, the Second Amendment, because the NRA and other proponents do not believe that the Second Amendment justifies this federal mandate. That is why they turned to the Commerce Clause.

But having a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun across a state line is not commerce. Therefore, H R 822 is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause. If it were, it also would be constitutional for Congress to pass other laws, premised on the Commerce Clause, regulating concealed carry permits—including laws that restrict gun rights.

Several years ago, President Clinton attempted to prohibit the carrying of guns near some public buildings, and he justified the law under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate in the 2009 health care legislation relies on the same unconstitutional abuse of the Commerce Clause. Likewise, H R 822 abuses the Commerce Clause to dangerously expand federal power over gun rights.

It is not only unlawful but also reckless to disregard the Constitution's limits on federal power. Without limited government, our rights—including our gun rights—are at the whim of whoever is in power. This Congress may use the Commerce Clause to violate state sovereignty in favor of gun rights. But the next Congress may use this same authority to deprive us of our gun rights.

The NRA pushed hard for H R 822—it was their top bill for this term. They pressured constitutional conservatives to cosponsor the bill, and many of them privately conceded to me that they regretted doing so. Republicans did not want to vote on this unsound piece of legislation, but a deal was cut. On the same week the House considered the NRA's top bill, the NRA publicly announced support for the Republican leadership's $130 billion "minibus" (wasteful) spending bill, H R 2112, which most conservatives have criticized and which nearly all conservatives opposed.

To distract from my exposing the extreme flaws in H R 822, the NRA has accused me of "lying" on my campaign questionnaire about my support for the legislation. Ironically, their link to the questionnaire exposes their effort to mislead the public.

I have never supported H R 822, and I refused to cosponsor it. On the questionnaire, I circled "A" because I support national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation. The response does not specify which legislation. H R 197 (referenced on the questionnaire) is expired legislation that I would not have had a chance to support and did not support. H R 822 did not exist at the time. Both of those options are unconstitutional because they improperly rest on the Commerce Clause for authority. I support a constitutional alternative, such as an interstate compact requiring congressional approval or legislation premised on the Second Amendment.

The Constitution does not support H R 822. Therefore, I could not support it. It passed 272-154. Here's the roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml.

03-21-2012, 02:58 PM
Sounds like Justin Amash summed it up quite nicely, the bill infringes on our right to keep and bear and is therefore Unconstitutional on its face.

Shouldn't need any clarification for the 2nd amendment, it's in plain English and means what is says,

I looked at a sweet .357 revolver today, has a 4 inch barrel and a wood grip, used for $300 in fine shape and I'm real tempted.

But I'll let it simmer for a bit, I'm not big on impulse buying and even that much money is something I have to think twice about these days.

03-21-2012, 03:04 PM
I just realized that Rand Paul co-sponsored the bill. :confused:

us-senators.com (http://us-senators.com/2012/03/senators-thune-and-vitter-introduce-reciprocity-bill/)

Maybe that's why Ron Paul hasn't spoken up on the issue.

Feeding the Abscess
03-21-2012, 11:06 PM
For what it's worth, Ron did not co-sponsor the bill.

03-21-2012, 11:10 PM
I just realized that Rand Paul co-sponsored the bill. :confused:

What is that a measure of anymore?