Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.


PDA






92FS
October 14, 2011, 07:10 PM
I created a petition on the Whitehouse’s website to urge the Obama administration and congress to support H.R.822. WE have until Oct 22 to get 5000 signatures. We have 2070 to go. Please if you haven’t signed this petition already go to the link posted in this thread and do so. We need this to pass. And we are so close. Here’s the link http://wh.gov/g82 here’s a link to the you tube video to better explain
The signing process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPyzgQh4Fo Thank you.

If you enjoyed reading about "Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AEA
October 15, 2011, 07:07 PM
This is a Lib scam.
They will use this (if passed) to control State's rights WRT Firearms and will surely strip the 2nd Amendment away from us!

Don't fall for it!

AEA
October 15, 2011, 07:19 PM
Well then, THR Guy has no idea what he is promoting.
Anyone who signs this is a FOOL!
Not that it will make any difference anyway, but the thought that you can be fooled this easily makes me sick.

Another F&F (Deception) in the making, this time for NORTH of the Border!

Shadow 7D
October 15, 2011, 07:30 PM
Um, it won't pass and it won't pass muster

HOWEVER
do you think the people of Arizona, Alaska and Vermont want CALIFORNIA's or worse, NY,NY CCW regulation and GUN GRABBING imposed on them????

AEA
October 15, 2011, 07:46 PM
I can speak for Texas: NO!

Shadow 7D
October 15, 2011, 11:16 PM
And how would the federal government impose one states laws on another
who decides what standards are acceptable?

do we allow anybody who is able to CCW in their home state, So residents of Alaska or Arizona can carry with out a license..

This is a non starter every state in the Union will sue and it will be defeated if it doesn't just get killed in committee or vetoed. Most states recognize those licenses that are of a similar or more stringent standard than their own, most with reciprocation. This issue is MUCH better addressed on the state level.

AEA
October 16, 2011, 03:41 AM
The goal is to essentially apply the Full Faith and Credit clause to gun carry permits. Essentially, if you have a state permit, such as say, a Virginia CHL, an you want to visit Idaho, then your Virginia permit is valid there. It's also valid in any state you visit along the way. That's the goal, from what was posted.

You may think that is the goal (sounds good huh) they want you to think that way..........unfortunately, the real (hidden & deceiving) goal is more "common sense" control (IE: repeal the 2nd).

Ridgerunner665
October 16, 2011, 07:33 AM
Agreed...DO NOT sign this.

If states want reciprocity they can get it already, without getting the feds involved....if WE give the Feds the power to give us this, then by default we also give them the power to take it away.

It is a trick, don't fall for it...

I'm a truck driver and I carry all over the country, been doing it that way a long time...reciprocity works just fine.

Mike1234567
October 16, 2011, 07:41 AM
It's a baited trap.

Geckgo
October 16, 2011, 07:47 AM
Haven't read the bill, can't endorse it right now, but I tend to agree with the "trap" crowd. Not sure if it's a conscious decision to "trap" us necessarily, but when I read the NRA report on HR 822 I thought to myself, "why?" If we don't need it then I don't want it. One less piece of paper for lawers to pass over till they find a loophole, for good or bad.

GreenSkyy87
October 16, 2011, 04:34 PM
No thanks, I support the 10th and believe in the constitution.

For the full faith and credit clause argument, well, there is a pretty big difference in drivers licenses, marriage licenses, etc, etc.

A) All the things that fall under full faith are very common and have very similar application processes.

B) I don't know any states that allow you to obtain a drivers license without taking a test.

Some states require actual range time to qualify, others don't. Some states don't even require a permit to carry concealed. It varies too much to try and apply full faith and credit.

Lastly, I believe in small government. My ability to carry a concealed handgun is the last thing I even want anywhere near the feds. May still be a state permit, but like I said, 10th amendment.

I too could see this turning out to be an anti-gun sham too. If they grant a power, that gives them a power to take away.

oneounceload
October 17, 2011, 08:48 PM
Any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have away

I would not want MY CCW in FL to be governed by the laws of DC, NYC, Chicago, etc.

DO NOT GIVE THE FEDS THAT RIGHT

FMF Doc
October 17, 2011, 09:46 PM
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Constitutional Lawyer. However, I can read, and the NRA DOES have Constitutional Lawyers. They like this bill, and can find anyting wrong with it.

It should be unnecessary. The Constitution already states that a "privilage" in one state shall be valid in all. That is why your marrige license, and driver's license are valid no matter where you go.

" Article IV: Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

For one, this mentions "Immunites" and "Privileges" but NOT RESTRICTIONS! Secondly, the fact that the Supreme Court has asininely interpreted this to not include professional licenses (ie: doctors, lawyers, etc) or CHP is beyond me. That is why there needs to be a law that garuntees that there is some semblance of unity in this republic. I fail to see how this cuold possibly endange 2A??? I fail to see how a nut like Bloomberg could use this to impose draconian NCY laws on the country as a whole. All I see this doing is preventing the legal hassels associated with interstate travel. Now I can drive from NC to NY to visit my mother and take my gun with me. If anyone has a specific argument to the contrary, I would love to hear it!

GreenSkyy87
October 18, 2011, 05:17 AM
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Constitutional Lawyer. However, I can read, and the NRA DOES have Constitutional Lawyers. They like this bill, and can find anyting wrong with it.

Acorn has constitutional lawyers too who also like bills that cater to their agenda. :banghead:

Mike1234567
October 18, 2011, 09:14 AM
It's disturbing to see you guys reduced to fear mongering whenever the word "federal" is mentioned. Remember, that second amendment we all love so much is a federal thing.

Disturbing to see such public distrust in Federal Government (politicians)? Yes. Public distrust earned by those politicians? Yes.

hso
October 18, 2011, 10:18 AM
Article IV: Section 2 should already serve the purpose of HR822, but because 4-2 is ignored by the states with respect to carry of a firearm, a permit in FL is not recognized in CA or NJ (much less the "constitutional carry" of Alaska or New Hampshire).

What then does HR822 "do" that is not already required by Article IV: Section 2 of the Constitution? It specifically addresses the question of whether a carry permit in one state must be honored in another.

Dnaltrop
October 18, 2011, 07:44 PM
Reciprocity works fine...

Of course while the Oregon CHL is apparently recognized by a good number of states, we recognize that visitors from other states have no right to self defense when visiting here.

Just fine indeed... ;)

Neverwinter
October 18, 2011, 11:09 PM
It should be unnecessary. The Constitution already states that a "privilage" in one state shall be valid in all. That is why your marrige license, and driver's license are valid no matter where you go.
Unless you're gay/lesbian. Or black in 1966.

The people against it are afraid of the possibility of an eventual outcome where a bill enforcing recognition results in the restrictions of one state being passed down to all of the other states. In this sense, it is quite the opposite of the "Defense of Marriage" Act which protects states from acknowledging the civil liberties of visitors/residents; HR822 prevents states from denying the civil liberties of visitors/residents(except in one case). What people are worried about is the forecasted anti-gun equivalent of DOMA on steroids, where the restrictions on liberties within one state are forced on all of the other states.

rjrivero
October 21, 2011, 07:44 AM
I find these guys are more on top of HR822 than even the NRA.
H.R. 822 could be taken up for a vote as early as tomorrow morning.

From the beginning, I have been warning you about H.R. 822 turning into a Trojan Horse.

Unfortunately, I'm being proven right more quickly than I ever imagined.

I've been afraid that this bill would be amended to include "reasonable" gun control measures that would, in fact, turn out to be disastrous federally mandated infringements on our rights.

The response to this was an assurance that, should the bill be amended, it would be pulled by its sponsors.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but it already has been amended.

Prior to leaving the Judiciary Committee, H.R. 822 was amended to include the following changes:

* A "study" to control firearm sales over the internet;
* Eliminated provisions for states' rights;
* A "review" in one year -- providing a perfect opportunity for more changes.

Keep in mind, these changes have been made by a Republican-controlled committee that is part of a Republican-controlled House.

What happens when it gets to Harry Reid's Senate?

In addition to the accepted amendments, numerous others have been proposed such as:

* Inclusion of REAL ID as part of H.R. 822;
* Banning national carry for anyone under 21 years of age;
* Anyone labeled as a "terrorist" would be denied carry rights;
* Requirements for all individuals to provide 24 hour notice to any state he or she would be traveling to.

I haven't told you the craziest part, yet.

One amendment proposed would have changed H.R. 822 to allow Washington, D.C. to be included in the list of places one would have reciprocity.

Guess what?

Republicans voted it down!

I guess that D.C. v Heller case didn't mean all that people said it did, huh?

I need you to call your Congressman right now.

Tell them that this is not the answer to better gun laws.

Tell them that this bill will only make things more complicated and, in the end, hurt gun owners.

Call your Congressman at 202-224-3121.

This is important.

Call them as soon as possible, because this could happen tomorrow morning.

Tell your Congressman to vote no on H.R. 822 and to keep the federal government out of your concealed carry laws.

-- Dudley

From: Dudley Brown [dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:54 PM

AirForceShooter
October 21, 2011, 08:51 AM
Florida sayin NO

AFS

Tallinar
November 10, 2011, 02:04 PM
If states want reciprocity they can get it already, without getting the feds involved....if WE give the Feds the power to give us this, then by default we also give them the power to take it away.

+1!

If you enjoyed reading about "Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!