[Al Norris]

What are the differences between HR 822 as introduced, and HR 822 as sent to the Senate? I have attached the two versions for your own comparison.

1. Section 2 of the original contained the findings of the Congress that the right to carry was part and parcel of the second amendment. That the Congress had the authority under the 14th amendment to ensure all States that allowed their citizens to carry, via a permit, that they allowed all visitors to their State, the same right.
   
   That entire section was eliminated in the passed version.
   .
2. Section 3 of the original bill added Section 926(D) to Title 18 Chapter 44 of the U.S.C. This is now Section 2 of the passed bill.
   .
   1. Sec. 926(D)(b) of the original bill mandated that visitors carrying into another State were bound by that States laws.
      
      That section was eliminated.
      .
   2. Sec. 926(D)(c) of the original bill, declared that those States that imposed restrictions on their licenses, must honor out of State permits in the least restrictive manner authorized by State law.
      
      That section was eliminated.
      .
   3. Sec. 926(D)(d) of the original included a provision that nothing in this law could be construed to alter or change in any manner the way a State handled its own licensing or permitting laws.
      
      That section was eliminated. As noted in my previous post, an exception was added to the new 926(D)(b) that would, on the surface, do the same thing. However, there is nothing in that exception that would prevent the Federal Government to change/mandate/require/substitute a Federal law for a State law. The language of the eliminated section would have absolutely prevented such interference.
   .
3. Sec 2(c) of the original bill contained a severability clause.
   
   That section was eliminated.
   .
4. A new Section 3 was added: GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES’ CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
   1. The GAO is to study each States non-resident carry laws as to its effectiveness in maintaining the public safety.
      1. This "study" will come back as inconclusive, as no such study can be done (with 49 differing States) within the narrow time frame (see note "F," below).
   .
5. A new Section 4 was added: GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIRE-ARMS PERMITS.
   1. The GAO is to study the effectiveness of local authorities to verify and validate out of State permits.
      1. This "study" will come back in the negative, as it would take the States more than a year (again, see note "F," below) to compile a database that any other State could access.
   .
6. Both of the above GAO reports are to be submitted to the Congress within one year.

Because the Congress eliminated the Findings section, the Courts can (and will) conclude that there is no right to carry in the public. If the Congress believed that such a right existed, they would have retained that provision. They did not.

Should one of the cases get to the Supreme Court, we know that the anti-gun Justices would hold just that. Justice Kennedy would side with the 4 anti-gun Justices, as I believe he is opposed to public carry. So... It is possible that a 5-4 decision could come out (dissenting: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). More probable would be a 6-3 decision (dissenting: Alito, Scalia and Thomas). My crystal ball says that it would be a 7-2 decision with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Regardless, that would be the end of the right to carry.

As for why the anti-gunners are screaming (loudly) against this bill? Have you ever heard of a "Trap Play" in football? They are screaming against this bill in order to get us to support it.