H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, would require Massachusetts to recognize the right of anyone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by any other state to do so here.

Filed by Rep. Cleff Stearns, R-FL,, the bill has 245 co-sponsors in the House and could soon be attached to an upcoming Senate appropriations bill. It is an attempt by the national gun lobby to expand the rights of gun owners, this time by undermining the authority of the states to enact and enforce statutes governing who will and will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons within their borders.

In New Bedford, law enforcement authorities and elected leaders have made significant and well-documented progress in dampening gun violence by arresting and prosecuting those who carry weapons illegally.

H.R. 822 would seriously threaten that progress in fighting violent crime, while upsetting the balance between state and federal authority over gun ownership.

Gun regulations have largely been left to the individual states in recognition of significant regional differences in attitudes and values toward guns. H.R. 822, would undo that principle by forcing states with tough gun laws — such as Massachusetts — to accept regulations authored in other states and other regions.

The regulations governing the legal right to carry concealed weapons vary widely, according to research by the lobbying group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

For example, only 38 states, including Massachusetts, prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors. And 29 states, including Massachusetts, prevent people who abuse alcohol from carrying concealed weapons, while 21 states do not.

Thirty-six states require that people be at least 21 years old before they may be issued permits to carry concealed weapons, but the rest do not.

Fourteen states require that applicants for permits to carry concealed weapons demonstrate good character and 12 require that applicants demonstrate "good cause," while nearly half of all states give law enforcement authorities discretion over who may and may not receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The point is this: attitudes toward gun rights — especially the right to carry a concealed weapon — vary widely from state to state, and there is no national consensus on the question. What passes for normal in Arizona or Kansas might sound like lunacy in Massachusetts. And vice versa.

The genius of the United States resides in part in the federal system that gives some powers to the federal government and some to the states. Gun regulations have largely been left to the states to decide based on their individual values. The same is true for a host of other issues, from gay marriage to abortion rights, from sales taxes to high school graduation requirements.

In many cases, the states serve as laboratories that test legislative and political remedies, and most Americans understand that those state rights help protect all of us from an over-reaching federal government.

On those grounds alone, this bill should be opposed and defeated.

That it is opposed by mayors, clergy, law enforcement organizations and opponents of domestic violence — who helped defeat a similar bill two years ago — should be enough to convince members of Congress that this legislation upsets the balance between state and federal authority and threatens to cause harm in cities like New Bedford that are finally making gains against gun violence.