H.R.645 - National Constitutional Carry Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act, seeks to enforce Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights against state restrictions on carrying firearms. It amends Title 18 of the United States Code to prevent states from imposing criminal or civil penalties on individuals carrying firearms in public, regardless of residency, provided they are eligible to possess firearms under federal and state law.
The bill defines 'public' broadly but allows private property owners to prohibit firearms on their premises with clear communication. It aims to nullify state laws that criminalize or penalize the carrying of firearms by eligible individuals.
The bill's findings cite Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen to support its interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would significantly alter the landscape of gun control in the United States by preempting state laws that restrict the carrying of firearms in public.
States would be unable to impose permitting requirements, background checks specific to carrying, or other restrictions on individuals who can legally possess firearms. This could lead to increased carrying of firearms in public spaces.
The practical effect would be a national standard for carrying firearms, overriding varying state regulations.
Potential Benefits
- Increased self-defense options: Law-abiding citizens would have greater ability to protect themselves in public.
- Reduced legal burdens: Eliminates the need for permits and associated costs, making it easier for individuals to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
- Consistency across states: Creates a uniform standard for carrying firearms, reducing confusion for travelers.
- Upholding constitutional rights: Reinforces the Second Amendment right to bear arms as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- Discourages frivolous lawsuits: Prevents states from imposing penalties on those exercising their right to bear arms.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Increased gun violence: Critics argue that loosening restrictions on carrying firearms could lead to more gun-related incidents.
- Challenges for law enforcement: Makes it more difficult for law enforcement to identify and prevent crime.
- Erosion of state control: Undermines the ability of states to tailor gun control laws to their specific needs and circumstances.
- Potential for accidental shootings: Increased carrying of firearms could lead to more accidental shootings.
- Public unease: Some members of the public may feel less safe in environments where more people are carrying firearms.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment hinges on the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the extent to which it restricts state regulation of firearms. The bill's proponents argue that it aligns with the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, which affirmed an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense. They emphasize the Second Amendment's clause stating that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed."
Opponents may argue that the bill infringes upon states' rights to regulate firearms under the Tenth Amendment and that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on carrying firearms in public. They might point to historical regulations and argue that the bill goes beyond the scope of the Second Amendment as originally intended.
The Fourteenth Amendment's application to the states is also central, as the bill seeks to enforce the Second Amendment against state actions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).