Previous Post
Next Post

Our man parsed H.R. 822 (The “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011”) over a month ago. Despite his definitive analysis, the exact “meaning” of the bill continues to be a matter of debate and confusion here on the Internets. C’est la guerre. And speaking of fragging, the NRA’s lobbying wing is none too happy about the alleged mis- and disinformation surrounding a piece of legislation which has less hope of Senate approval than the “National Keep Lindsay Lohan Naked in Jail Act”. “There’s been a lot of misguided, unfounded, and just plain incorrect information circulating on the Internet lately regarding H.R. 822,” the NRA’s email blast thunders. “Most of the false characterizations typically come from the anti-gun groups and media.” But not all of it . . .

But more and more, a small cadre of self-described “pro-gun” groups continually sound false alarms and “stir the pot” in an effort to be noticed. These repeat offenders peddle mischaracterizations as the gospel, and dilute the good work being done to protect the Second Amendment by legitimate groups.

Some of the misinformation borders on ridiculous. One group circulated an email this week (Thursday, October 20) warning readers that, “H.R. 822 could be taken up for a vote as early as tomorrow morning.” What the author failed to realize is that “tomorrow morning,” (Friday, October 21) was a day the U.S. House was not even in session! Not very confidence-inspiring.

Yeah. Get your facts straight! And don’t mischaracterize information or use alarmist rhetoric. That’s our job!

NOTE: This post originally suggested that the NRA was taking on gun bloggers. Although all the groups that the NRA accused of getting it wrong have blogs, the NRA wasn’t attacking bloggers per se. I apologize for the mistake.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I saw this e-mail this morning, and it really wasn’t clear to me that the complaints made really address NRA-ILA’s true concerns about gun bloggers.

    I would think that their biggest worry comes from the pro-gun crowd who would argue against on the basis that it is a state rights issue. Which is an understandable and reasonable perspective, IMHO.

    Yes, I would like to have the ability to carry in all 50 states, but we do need to do our due diligence in evaluating unintended consequences.

  2. I think this is more a failure of the NRA than it is of gun blogs…. isnt it their job to be the ones to effectively get the message out? Shouldn’t they have all the gun bloggers on speed dial and be out infront of things like this? Looks to me like they failed to be on point and now they are trying to clean things up and blame the online community for their lack of leadership.


    • The WH will never support it, but the point is to let them know to pick their battles elsewhere.

      It also gives Republican candidates an issue to talk about during the upcoming election.

  3. The NRA was opposed to the Heller case for fear it would end up setting a bad precedent on the 2nd Amendment. That was a legitimate fear and many were holding their breath before the 5-4 decision that saved our gun rights came out. We were one vote away from losing a lot, maybe all.

    But it seems that something, maybe that episode, has had some sort of bad effect on the NRA because they’ve lately been claiming credit for Heller and McDonald when in fact all the water was carried by the Second Amendment Foundation. Things like this incoherent response to gun blogs seem to be in that same vein.

    • “We were one vote away from losing a lot, maybe all”.

      That bothered me too. Obama has already placed two new judges on the SC who represent his left-wing values. What will the future bring? I don’t know. Long term, should we look to western Australia and western Europe for an idea about which types of guns will be legal? Then again, guns are part of our culture far more than overseas.

  4. I think that the NRA is being kind. There are more paranoid, off the wall, tinfoil hat anti-HR822 posts on pro-gun sites than there are on the anti-gun side.

    There are a lot more pro-gunners than anti-gunners, yet we’re still playing defense. Why? Because they are totally united in their efforts to ban guns generally and self-defense in particular, and we can’t get on the same page when it comes to something as simple, straightforward and basic as HR822.

    HR822 is never going to become law. It will probably get through the House, but not the Senate. In fact, Reid won’t allow it to come up for a majority vote in the Senate, so if it goes to the floor for an up or down, it will require 60 votes to pass. The last time a reciprocity act went to the Senate, there were 58 in favor, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.

    Once the bill dies, it should be given a decent funeral by the people who killed it. I have met the enemy, and they are us.

  5. “HR822 is never going to become law. It will probably get through the House, but not the Senate. In fact, Reid won’t allow it to come up for a majority vote in the Senate, so if it goes to the floor for an up or down, it will require 60 votes to pass. The last time a reciprocity act went to the Senate, there were 58 in favor, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.”

    If we put the same effort into lobbying as we did commenting on blogs it would pass overwhelmingly.

    • I wish. The NRA is lobbying for this bill, and that’s something that the NRA does very well. But the antis (the obvious ones such as Dick Durban, the two harpies from California, Schumer and the rest of that clack, and the stealth ones like Harry Reid) still control the Senate and they will kill this bill. Stalin once said, “when we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.” Right now, the gun grabbers are saying the same thing about us.

      • I wish Ralph was wrong on this, but he’s not and this bill doesn’t stand a chance of passing. I don’t care about the states rights part, because most of the gun hating COMMIE states don’t care about our rights.

      • I believe it was Khruschev who told us he’d sell us the rope. A fiddly detail, to be true, but these things can snowball if left to run free.

        • Eek! We would sell him the rope. As always, when you correct somebody, you run the risk of making your own mistake!

  6. I don’t know – I’m with the NRA on this one. Every time it’s brought up here people spew the same rant “I don’t want no federaly gobment messn’ wit my guns [sic].” Many of the detractors say it should be a states right and cite the 10A as proof:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    In fact if these people took the time to actually read the 10A they see that it in fact makes it the Federal Governments place to tell states that they need to honor the Constitution, specifically the 2A.

    More specifically, if they actually read H.R. 822 they’d understand that it does NOTHING other then mandate that states honor the CC permits/licences of other states.

    • For too many people, the sky is always falling and the boogieman is always under the bed. The reaction from some pro-gun people on HR822 isn’t one based on rational thought. The pro-2A, anti-HR822 folks are smart and they can read as well as we can. Their reaction is based on distrust so overwhelmingly strong that it precludes rational thought. I’m not blaming them for the way they feel — the government has earned that distrust — but it’s killing us.

  7. I swear NRA right now has tunnel vision which mean there spending all there time get word out on operation fast and furious ingor any other subject out there. If want proof go Nra news site you well see most dominate subject there. Do not get wrong I think operation fast and furious should be cover but spend ever day talking about it ingor other subject out there hands ant gun groups easy victor which working for.

  8. “The NRA is lobbying for this bill, and that’s something that the NRA does very well.”

    Ok, but.. what have you done (the plural, general you. Not directing this at one specific person)? The NRA-ILA is an organization that many gun owners support financially to go do our bidding for us at the federal level but… There’s still that whole… you know, citizen involvement thingie. You know, the part where you call the person elected to represent your views and tell them what’s what. It’s easy to sit here and proclaim “it will never pass, so I won’t help”. It’s easy to say “I give to the NRA and comment vociferously on TTAG so… I’ve done my part for gun rights.”

    It’s not so easy to actually do something. Even if the elected one is an anti you need to be on top of them like white on rice for gun issues. You and a dozen of your closest friends. You convince one or 2 people to do likewise, and ask them to do the same.

    We are our own worst enemy in this regard – me too, in that we whine, bitch and moan about how bad it is but to the wrong audience.

  9. TO: Robert Farago
    RE: Sooooo…..

    ….WHAT, exactly, is your point?

    Is the NRA ‘on target’? Or is there something else at play here?


    [The Truth will out….if we can get to it….]

  10. The “competition”, such as SAF, GOA, and gun bloggers, keeps the NRA honest when political expediency might lead them astray. The NRA, like the Obama Administration, hates transparency and open debate. Instead of answers, they conduct smear campaigns. As this incident shows.

  11. I’m not sure where TTAG got the idea that the NRA post was an attack on bloggers. It’s pretty clearly a slap at the “National Association for Gun Rights” and Dudley Brown which sent the Oct 20 email NRA is referring to. Last I checked bloggers were not “groups”.

    I think NRA is correct to make fun of NAGR for not even realizing the House of Reps was out of session. If you can’t get something like that straight, how close do you really pay attention to the goings on in Congress.

    Even if HR 822 doesn’t pass the Senate, it serves a purpose in that it will help identify friend from foe.

    TeeJaw, SAF didn’t bring the Heller case so they had very little to do with it either.

  12. Also, the fact that the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns are, along with the media, are desperately trying to kill HR 822 should tell you all you need to know about the bill. The fact that NAGR is working alongside the Brady folks should concern us all.

  13. (paragraph format restored)

    Reciprocity is a well-oiled mechanism that operates between the 50 states. Hardly is it uniform, but it is well established nonetheless.

    If I am duly licensed to CC in Iowa and I travel to Chicago, do I cease to be resident of the state of Iowa? Do I cease to be a citizen of the United States? Are my Constitutional rights subject to change? Is my Iowa drivers license automatically invalidated?

    If I am a licensed physician or engineer, do I lose the ability to practice my discipline when I cross the state line and travel to Chicago? If I am called by a patient or a client while in Chicago, is it illegal for me to conduct my licensing with parties in Iowa from my situs in Chicago?

    There is no 2nd Amendment right to be a physician or an engineer, or to practice either. But there is a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

    To have met the test of one state, should, at the very least, put the burden of proof onto the other state or local jurisdiction that wishes to strip me not only of my rights owned in my home state, but also my constitutional rights. Further, I am stripped of my right to due process.

    What other constitutional rights can be stripped from an American citizen merely by crossing the state line between two different states?

    Consider: the right to bear arms is a constitutional right; I have received due process in my state of residency and arising from same have met the requirements of CC licensing which are a product of the due process to which I am a party of.

    Then I cross the state line and I go to Chicago. There I am stripped of a constitutional right and denied due process by fiat of government action where I had no representation whatsoever.

    There is a bigger boundary problem here than meets the eye. I think the Constitutional issue is larger, as well.

    I appreciate the vagaries of competing jurisdictions; and, of primacy.

    But on the main, a giant stands in the shadows; the US Constitution that guarantees me due process and equal protection under the law. The gun on my hip is concealed and thus on my person and not in the commons. For it to enter so, my only successful defense in any jurisdiction would be the immediate protection of my life. Yet the claim is my Constitutional rights must be stripped because I “might” break the law. What kind of precedent does that create? What kind of abuses does that invite?

    There is no Constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. There is no Constitutional right to be a physician, a teacher, or an engineer. There is no Constitutional right to be a city government, and there is no Constitutional right for a city or state government to strip the Constitutional rights of an American citizen person or any other right without first granting them representation and due process of law.

    For there to be regulation, it presupposes due process has ensured representation of the parties to be regulated. When regulations happens on a state, country or municipal jurisdictional level, those who live outside that jurisdiction are denied representation and due process as they have no representatives present on the governing body.

    Where no Constitutional rights are usurped, these jurisdictional governments may do as they please provided their right to do so not been preempted.

    This is another interesting issue lurking in the reciprocity question. When the state residency has so license and certified the competency of the armed citizen to conceal carry, there is a synergy that, IMHO, preempts any other equivalent or lesser jurisdiction from taking same away without meeting some burden of proof via due process where the citizen has representation — prior to the fiat criminalization of a Constitutional right with no such representation or due process prior granted to the subject party.

  14. TO: All
    RE: Hmmmm

    Based on the apparent confusion being offered by everything I’ve read….and barring better clarification….

    ….I’m standing—at this time—opposed to passage of this act.


    [The Truth is OUT THERE….somewhere…..barring attorney interference.]

    P.S. Lawyer, n., One skilled at circumventing the Law. — Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

  15. I thought 822 was just a codification of the full faith and credit clause establishing C/C permits as an equivalent to a marriage or drivers license. It doesn’t worry me. I am happy to see it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here