H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

mrreynolds
November 10, 2011, 12:10 PM
H.R. 822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

As of this posting:

85% Users Support Bill
417 in favor / 72 opposed

Contact here: OpenCongress.org (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show)

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
henschman
November 10, 2011, 12:22 PM
No thanks... under our Constitution, things like Concealed Carry are none of the Feds' business. You are fooling yourself if you think you are protecting your rights by giving the Federal government more power and authority.

hermannr
November 10, 2011, 01:36 PM
henschman: HR822 does not give the feds any more power. All HR822 is doing is telling the states to recongnize that there is a right to travel, unfettered, between the states.

It is no different than saying...you states that have a drivers license allow licensed drivers to opperate on your roads, under your laws, but recognize the license from their home states.

We now want you to recognized a traveler from another state's license to carry, in the same manner.

It does not set a federal standard, just like there is no federal standard for automobile driver's licenses. It does not say that a state must have a permit, it only says, IF you allow (any) of your citizens to carry with a license, then you must allow a traveler that has a permit granted under another states law, to carry under the same conditions you allow your citizens to carry.

David Kopel did a bang up job of explaining it here: http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

ConstitutionCowboy
November 10, 2011, 07:35 PM
I've had to post this response so many times, I've made it canned response:

Congress does have power to unfetter our RKBA, but this bill does no such thing. It does not remove one infringement on the RKBA. It does, in fact, INCORPORATE all the existing state infringements on carry and bury them under a layer of Federal law.

This bill, if passed into law, will become de facto recognition of and acceptance by the Federal government of all those unconstitutional carry permit laws in most of the several states. How on Earth can that be considered a removal of any infringement(s) on our RKBA?

All this bill will do is make our quest to unfetter our RKBA more difficult. Think about this long and hard before you jump onto this band wagon that'll take you into Federal gun control hell.

As far as carrying from state to state, we're getting there judicially, step by step, with solid 2nd and 14th Amendment rulings.

If you allow Congress to pass this bill, all you will be doing is exchanging a small cage for a bigger one - made out of much bigger bars! Giving an animal a bigger cage is not giving it freedom. Are you not something more than an animal? You all do have the smarts to set your self free. There is no sense in making it more difficult than it is right now!

Woody

oneounceload
November 10, 2011, 07:46 PM
This is just another form of the one previously closed. Say NOP to the FEDS being involved in anything.,

Anyone who really thinks this is going to work has not been around to see how well LBJ's Great Society has worked out

Neverwinter
November 10, 2011, 09:15 PM
No thanks... under our Constitution, things like Concealed Carry are none of the Feds' business. You are fooling yourself if you think you are protecting your rights by giving the Federal government more power and authority.
No, I would not support it. I also would not support a bill to enforce constitutional carry on all of the states, as it would be expanding federal power by getting them involved where they are currently not.

Bubba613
November 11, 2011, 04:34 AM
Gun guys opposing RKBA. Who'd a thunk it?

AirForceShooter
November 11, 2011, 08:38 AM
My rep keeps sending me e-mails how he's supporting this and is a co-sponsor of the bill.
I write back telling him I don't want the feds in my gum world and to start addressing serious problems, not this crap that will never go anywhere.

AFS

beatledog7
November 11, 2011, 08:43 AM
+1 Cowboy. The only Federal law we need or want regarding any aspect of our RKBA is 2A, and we already have that.

Bubba13,

That's not opposition to RKBA. It's recognition that, in this case, the ends do not justify the means.

Waywatcher
November 11, 2011, 09:28 AM
I hope the Senate takes this up.

Threads with comment strings like this make me glad to be an NRA member.

Absolute, uncompromising ideology isn't going to get us anywhere.

oneounceload
November 11, 2011, 09:53 AM
Gun guys opposing RKBA. Who'd a thunk it?

Nope, gun guys opposing Federal involvement in what is, essentially, a state's rights issue

Bubba613
November 11, 2011, 10:05 AM
Wait, if the 2A now applies to states, as per McDonald, then how is that a states' rights issue? I assume everyone here applauded McDonald and no one claimed the Feds were encroaching on states' rights, which was the anti-gun position.

Birch Knoll
November 11, 2011, 10:26 AM
Nope, gun guys opposing Federal involvement in what is, essentially, a state's rights issue

The only Federal law we need or want regarding any aspect of our RKBA is 2A

You guys gotta make up your minds. It's either the 2nd Amendment, or it's state's rights. It can't be both.

Bubba613
November 11, 2011, 10:37 AM
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.....

oneounceload
November 11, 2011, 11:00 AM
and you two are turning this thread right back into the circular urinating contest that you did the other one

NO ONE is going to change any one's mind here, so it might as well be closed like the last one

and Bubba, your snarky immature insults are not OK on this forum

usmarine0352_2005
November 11, 2011, 11:03 AM
I heard it was likely to pass in the House but not the Senate.




Is that correct?





When will the next vote be?

Birch Knoll
November 11, 2011, 11:10 AM
And you two are turning this thread right back into the circular urinating contest that you did the other one

I am? I didn't join this thread until post #13, and then not to argue in favor of HR822, but to point out the logical inconsistency in the arguments posted against HR822.

mrreynolds
November 11, 2011, 11:11 AM
Meeting Time: Monday, November 14, 2011 at 5:00 PM in H-313 The Capitol

LINK (http://www.rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=587)

ATBackPackin
November 11, 2011, 11:16 AM
You guys gotta make up your minds. It's either the 2nd Amendment, or it's state's rights. It can't be both.

Being honest, I am a little confused by this as well. I would love for someone to explain this to me. For those thinking that I am being sarcastic, nothing could be further from the truth. I am being completely sincere.

Shawn

gbw
November 11, 2011, 11:46 AM
In case no one has pointed this out the odds of this actually becoming law are zero. That doesn't mean it isn't a fight worth the effort if the goal is to raise awareness about responsible excercise of RKBA, but don't hold onto any real hope.

In the most unlikely case the bill should manage to get to him, the President will NEVER sign it. Such a law would severely annoy very large states on whom he most counts for base support.

There is not near enough senate support to override a veto.

LemmyCaution
November 11, 2011, 12:04 PM
I've written and called my rep and both senators asking them to oppose this bill.

I've said multiple times why I oppose it (same reasons Woody does) and been mocked and made the target of strawman arguments on multiple now closed threads for it.

This subject has seemingly had enough debate, if we can't get beyond Bubba613's condescension and paternalism. He's offered very little rationale for supporting the bill and only strawmen to refute the opposition.

Maybe the mods should put a stop to it.

Hardware
November 11, 2011, 12:14 PM
If this passes a socialist, err... democratically controlled senate then you will be able to knock me over with a feather. Looks like a total waste of time.

beatledog7
November 11, 2011, 12:21 PM
It's not a states' right issue. It's a 2A issue. It has for decades been treated as a states' rights issue, and it's convenient to see it that way, but it really isn't.

Bubba613
November 11, 2011, 12:25 PM
I've said multiple times why I oppose it (same reasons Woody does) and been mocked and made the target of strawman arguments on multiple now closed threads for it.

This subject has seemingly had enough debate, if we can't get beyond Bubba613's condescension and paternalism. He's offered very little rationale for supporting the bill and only strawmen to refute the oppositio

The issue has been discussed previously, agreed. I didnt start a new thread.
There is no condescension or paternalism here. Opposition to the bill seems based on two things: a misunderstanding of what the bill does, and a strange belief that it means the Feds are intruding on states rights.
For misunderstanding, someone posted a text of the bill.
For the states rights argument, it seems inconsistent to argue the bill intrudes on states rights while applauding the Supreme Court's rulings negating Chicago's ban on handguns. No one has squared this obvious contradiction.
The rationale for supporting it is that we believe in expanding the ability to carry firearms, which this bill does.

Birch Knoll
November 11, 2011, 12:28 PM
It's not a states' right issue. It's a 2A issue. It has for decades been treated as a states' rights issue, and it's convenient to see it that way, but it really isn't.

I agree with you. It is emphatically not a state's rights issue.

Bubba613
November 11, 2011, 12:41 PM
The moment the Supremes incorporated the 2A via the 14thA it ceased being a states rights issue, any more than voting is a states rights issue.

Dave Workman
November 11, 2011, 12:53 PM
This is important legislation.

I wrote about it in Friday morning Gun Rights Examiner column (a lot of you guys subscribe, evidently)

My forecast: The vote will be largely along party lines.

hugh damright
November 11, 2011, 01:08 PM
The moment the Supremes incorporated the 2A via the 14thA it ceased being a states rights issue

Incorporation seems to leave some aspects of gun control, such as CCW, as intrastate affairs. And HR822 recognizes that States don't have to allow CCW. If disallowing CCW is within the rights of the States, then it seems to me that deciding which CCW permits to recognize is also within their rights.

It seems inconsistent to argue the bill intrudes on states rights while applauding the Supreme Court's rulings negating Chicago's ban on handguns. No one has squared this obvious contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction ... it seems that banning handguns is beyond the rights of the States ... and it seems that regulating carry of handguns, and deciding which States' CCW permits to recognize, is within the rights of the States.

danez71
November 11, 2011, 08:26 PM
If disallowing CCW is within the rights of the States, then it seems to me that deciding which CCW permits to recognize is also within their rights.

I see your logic but I think HR 822 addresses this.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... HR822 doesnt infringe on the the state because HR822 says that if a state has CCW, then it must recognize other states CCW.

If a state doesnt have CCW, then they dont have to recognize CCW permits form other states.



2A is federal. Its in the supreme document for the entire USA. It says 'shall not infringe'.
(I concede there are exceptions for mental, violent etc)


I dont think HB822 SHOULD be needed but I see this as another 'feather in the cap' of the 2A.

IMO, those against it havent really laid out a good case. I could be misreading, but I sense a fear and/or hatred towards the Fed Govt from those that are against it.

I see more fearful speculation on what could happen rather than what laws or rights it would violate.

For those that are against it, I fail to see how it 'incorparates all of the states infringements into one'.

I like to learn... so teach me where I'm wrong by showing me what laws or rights it violates. Im sincere about this.

I'm open to respectful conversatrion whether here or via PM if this one gets closed.....too.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 11, 2011, 08:41 PM
I also would not support a bill to enforce constitutional carry on all of the states, as it would be expanding federal power by getting them involved where they are currently not.

This is one place Congress ALREADY has the power - in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. While HR 822 is not a correct use of this Fourteenth Amendment power, forcing the several states to remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is.

Absolute, uncompromising ideology isn't going to get us anywhere.

Neither is unstudied reasoning. HR 822 might look good on the surface, but when you look at how a misapplication of the Fourteenth Amendment is being used, it should be enough for one to say, "HEY! Hold it right there!" The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress power to PROTECT our rights, not to support unconstitutional state law infringing on our RKBA! This bill would in effect legitimize all those state laws requiring us to get a permit or license to carry a gun concealed or in any fashion.

danez71

See above.

Woody

danez71
November 11, 2011, 10:56 PM
........forcing the several states to remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is.


I dont see how HR822 does that. Nothing in it does.

Besides, "remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is" sounds like something you usually champion for. :confused:

The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress power to PROTECT our rights, not to support unconstitutional state law infringing on our RKBA!

I dont see your angle on how HR822 "... support unconstitutional state law infringing on our RKBA". If anything, it does the opposite.

This bill would in effect legitimize all those state laws requiring us to get a permit or license to carry a gun concealed or in any fashion.


I do see your "legitimize" angle. And true, I dont like that angle :( I give you that.

But I dont see your "incorporate" angle or the "support unconstitutional state law" angle. Its just not there.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 11, 2011, 11:06 PM
I dont see how HR822 does that. Nothing in it does.

That's what makes HR 822 bad law. It doesn't rise to the specific power granted Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment.

As far as HR 822 incorporating all that unconstitutional state law, HR 822 requires that you have a permit issued by a state to be able to carry state to state.

Woody

danez71
November 11, 2011, 11:35 PM
.... HR 822 requires that you have a permit issued by a state to be able to carry state to state.



While not perfect, its is better than what is present.

Another positive side is that states that have permits but are stingy issuing them would have many more people CCing at any given time and they will become more accustom and comfortable with it.

Now we're at, either you're unyielding whatesoever in seeing anything positive, or you recognize that its a progression that, if anything, is a feather in the cap of the 2A.

It in no way supports "unconstitutional state law". And it is not a federal permit system either so we're good there too.

I'm still giving you the "legitimize" angle though..... and if twisted enough by bad politicians and lazy voters, could go bad in the lng run.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 12, 2011, 07:55 PM
While not perfect, its is better than what is present.

Saying this bill is not perfect implies there is something good about it, and saying it's better than what we have at present is fallacious as well. Anything burying unconstitutional stats law under a layer of unconstitutional federal law only makes it harder to repeal the underlying unconstitutional law.

Here is an example of what I'm trying to get across. In Oklahoma, we have law that forbids us to carry guns but with specific exceptions in limited instances such as going to or from places where you can shoot, hunt, or get your guns worked on, etc. Those laws are unconstitutional. When we here in Oklahoma wanted to carry concealed, rather than remove the prohibiting law, our legislature just created new law adding more exceptions specifying steps and hoops one must jump through to carry. The underlying law is still in place and now harder to repeal because nearly everyone who wanted to carry concealed has been placated and no longer working toward repealing that unconstitutional underlying law.

It in no way supports "unconstitutional state law".

I don't know how you can say that when every state law requiring you to get a permit is unconstitutional.

If this bill passes, you've not lost one infringement upon your RKBA, and will then have the Feral(Federal) government involved in matters that even the several states shouldn't be involved in.

I'm still giving you the "legitimize" angle though..... and if twisted enough by bad politicians and lazy voters, could go bad in the lng run.

That alone should be enough for you to shout, "NO!" to this bill! "Legitimizing" the unconstitutional state law is a step backward, regardless of the bigger cage it'll give you.

Woody

beatledog7
November 12, 2011, 08:30 PM
Cowboy has reached the right conclusion via the right rationale. This bill is designed to make 2A supporters think we're getting something good, but it just won't work out that way.

The "bigger cage" will run by a more powerful and power hungry keeper. How that can be seen as good, when the small surface advantage is bound to be short-lived, is unfathomable.

Laf'n'Larry
November 12, 2011, 09:24 PM
I gave up following all the back and forth and looked at the NRA web site, http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7169

According to NRA, H.R. 822 is a good thing. Based on their advice I e-mailed my Rep. to support it. Now I can go back to thinking about fun stuff. :D

Nov. 14, -- Just got a reply from my Congressman. I could have saved my time. Turns out that he is a co-sponsor on 822. He is just waiting for it to report out of committee so it can be voted on.

beatledog7
November 12, 2011, 10:00 PM
NRA-ILA is wrong on this one, IMHO. They're not thinking about the long-term consequences, again, IMHO.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 12, 2011, 11:00 PM
I don't think the NRA intelligentsia is ignorant enough to be bamboozled by this bill. I think their support is devious. I haven't a clue who the NRA is in bed with on this bill, but It isn't a good marriage... Not for us, anyway. I'm a member of the NRA and I'm feeling let down by the Board.

It could be "job security" for all I know of what is behind the NRA's support of this bill, and it is an end supportable by the means being employed. It seems to me that this bill, when all the "unintended consequences" arise (cough, cough, cough!), the Board and the Executive VP's et al will have more battles to fight requiring more "donations" from the members.

There is a lot of progress being made in the Court, and I can only see Congress's move here as an attempt to short circuit that progress in an attempt to hold onto its usurped control with this carrot on a string to placate enough of us into silence. The whole of Congress isn't dumb enough not to see through this bill, but they obviously think we out here are. Don't fall for it.

Woody

Bubba613
November 12, 2011, 11:03 PM
I don't know how you can say that when every state law requiring you to get a permit is unconstitutional.
Proof?

danez71
November 13, 2011, 08:34 AM
Woody

All though we could split hairs on wording and phrashing, I get your examples etc above. Thanks for taking the time.

I see your points and in some ways agree. I think the difference is that you are 90% sure this will be bad in the long run and I'm only 10% sure/worried.

There is a lot of progress being made in the Court,......

Thats true and its good to recognize that.


Maybe HB822 is too early? Meaning, HB822 would have sounded a lot better to me in 94 than it does now. The tise was going out and capturing ANY of the forbidden water was valued.

The tide is comming back in now. Maybe now isnt the time to scope up a little cup of water?

I wish the SCOTUS was faster.

It'll never pass anways.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 11:35 AM
Proof?

Well, off the top of my head, you have Article VI, Clause 2; DC v. Heller; McDonald v. Chicago; the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Questions?

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 11:42 AM
The tide is comming back in now. Maybe now isnt the time to scope up a little cup of water?

Great metaphor. Removing a cup of water from the incoming tide will only remove some of its inertia. While I pray for a tsunami, this incoming tide will settle where it always does - at high tide.

Woody

Bubba613
November 13, 2011, 01:37 PM
Well, off the top of my head, you have Article VI, Clause 2; DC v. Heller; McDonald v. Chicago; the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Questions?
Since the Court held in Heller that states and municipalities have the power to institute "reasonable restrictions" and permits would appear to fall under that power, you have undermined your own argument. You understand that, right?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 05:00 PM
Since the Court held in Heller that states and municipalities have the power to institute "reasonable restrictions" and permits would appear to fall under that power, you have undermined your own argument. You understand that, right?

That's not the case in Heller at all. In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

Woody

Bubba613
November 13, 2011, 05:06 PM
This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?
So when Scalia writes that the 2ndA does not confer an unlimited right you take that to mean that it confers an unlimited right? Really?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 05:59 PM
So when Scalia writes that the 2ndA does not confer an unlimited right you take that to mean that it confers an unlimited right? Really?

If you want to quote what Scalia wrote and the four other concurring Justices agreed to, you've got to read the whole thing and quote it in context if you wish to make a valid point. I did that. Now it's your turn.

While you take your turn, bear in mind that the Second Amendment didn't confer anything. It protects the right from governmental interference. Ergo, it matters not what anyone in government might think the "scope" of the right is. It doesn't matter, because government can't touch it no matter what anyone might conjure it to be.

You also might want to bear in mind that there isn't much "scope" in either "keep" or "bear". You either keep or not. You either bear or not. It's like you are either pregnant or not.

Woody

Bubba613
November 13, 2011, 07:23 PM
I did see the whole thing in context. The context is that the 2A is not an unlimited right. Scalia says exactly that. He elaborates that the decision does not strike down "reasonable" restrictions.
If you want to impose your own reading, go right ahead. But it is meaningless in this context.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 08:34 PM
I did see the whole thing in context. The context is that the 2A is not an unlimited right. Scalia says exactly that. He elaborates that the decision does not strike down "reasonable" restrictions.
If you want to impose your own reading, go right ahead. But it is meaningless in this context.

Then please 'splain why he called them "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". In the beginning he said, "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, etc., etc. ...," and didn't come right out and say those things were constitutional. Never mind. Here is your answer: He didn't because he couldn't because the Court didn't try those things.

That's not my "reading", it's what Scalia wrote and what four other justices concurred with.

It would seem to me that people who misdirect with tactics such as saying the Second Amendment 'confers' the right rather than protects it ought to be able to recognize a similar tactic - though not used with devious ends - that Scalia used in Heller so as not to bless all those obvious-to-the-rest-of-us unconstitutional laws he mentioned in his not-to-be-purported-as-exhaustive list.

And, the language he used is not esoteric. It's plain English.

Woody

Bubba613
November 13, 2011, 08:54 PM
He didnt say they were constitutional because that wasn't the issue at hand. BUt believing that he said the opposite of what he plainly said is delusional.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 13, 2011, 10:46 PM
He didnt say they were constitutional because that wasn't the issue at hand.

Yup. I sad that....

BUt believing that he said the opposite of what he plainly said is delusional.

...But I didn't say nor do I believe that he said the opposite. He neither blessed nor cursed those "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". The salient part is that the Court didn't say those "reasonable restrictions" were constitutional. Period. That has been my contention all along.

Good night, God bless, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Woody

mrreynolds
November 14, 2011, 12:24 PM
WASHINGTON, DC
Monday, November 14, 2011

The House Rules Committee debates legislation allowing lawful gun owners to carry concealed weapons in other states. The legislation, titled the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,” would allow a person with a permit to carry a concealed handgun across state lines, even if a state prohibits it.

The legislation, which is expected to be debated in the full House this week, is co-sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC). The Rules Committee sets the terms of the debate in the House.

C-SPAN House rules committee session: Live at 5pm (ET) (http://www.c-span.org/Events/C-SPAN-Event/10737425494/)

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 05:02 PM
This is a terrible bill allowing the Feds to override certain States Rights.
Many of us CCW/FFL's in Texas are fighting this. Keep the Feds and Washington DC out of CCW. Leave it to the States as it should be. We (gun owners) will regret this if it passes.

Bubba613
November 14, 2011, 05:45 PM
You realize that is the very same argument the anti-gun people are making, right? How does it feel to be on the same side as Chuck Schumer?

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 05:55 PM
How does it feel to be on the wrong side friend?
How can you support legitimizing unconstitutional laws.
How can you support The Feds encroachment on yet even more of our lives and taking away more State's Right's?
How does that feel?

Bubba613
November 14, 2011, 06:40 PM
No, I'm on the side of expanding the ability to carry a handgun. The "states rights" argument is nonsensical at this point. Especially after everyone cheered Heller and McDonald, which explicitly overturned the unlimited right of states and municipalities to impose whatever laws they wanted.

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".

Birch Knoll
November 14, 2011, 07:05 PM
Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 07:40 PM
No, I'm on the side of expanding the ability to carry a handgun. The "states rights" argument is nonsensical at this point. Especially after everyone cheered Heller and McDonald, which explicitly overturned the unlimited right of states and municipalities to impose whatever laws they wanted.

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".
The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional...and this law only legitimizes that. So if passed, there is yet another layer (now Federal) of "law" to unravel to achieve true 2nd amendment rights for all law abiding citizens. The SCOTUS told the States they could not infringe on the 2nd Amendment (basically) that was protected by the US Constitution. Step in the right direction IMHO. HB822 is a step in the wrong direction as I outlined in my first sentence.

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 07:43 PM
Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...
You got that right and thank God the SCOTUS saw it that way also. Our 2nd amendment right is already guaranteed. Don't need the Fed to pass anything.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 14, 2011, 07:51 PM
Don't let the Feds interfere with the State's Right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms!

I think we took a wrong turn somewhere...

The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements? Just where are you coming from, friend?

I find it hard to fathom a measure designed to expand the right to carry characterized as "encroachment".

It doesn't expand our RKBA at all. It only expands the cage we are trapped in and adds another, more powerful gate keeper. Our cage will have simply expanded just enough to fit under the thumb of the Feral(Federal) Government. As for "encroachment", it has already been done in the several states save four.

Woody

Bubba613
November 14, 2011, 07:59 PM
The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional.
Really? What is your proof?

It doesn't expand our RKBA at all. It only expands the cage we are trapped in and adds another, more powerful gate keeper. Our cage will have simply expanded just enough to fit under the thumb of the Feral(Federal) Government. As for "encroachment", it has already been done in the several states save four.
Really? Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary. So characterizing the expansion of that to where we are today as "encroachment" is, um, disingenuous at best. If this is encroachment, I want more of it.

cor_man257
November 14, 2011, 08:03 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Okay. Having to be lisenced is an infringment in many opinions.

Birch Knoll
November 14, 2011, 08:16 PM
The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements? Just where are you coming from, friend?I'm just having a little fun with the idea that HR822 infringes on State's Rights.

For the 30 years I've been involved in the pro-RKBA struggle, we've been railing against state gun laws as violating the right to keep and bear arms. Along comes HR822, and suddenly some of us have become very attached to the states' "right" to legislate away our freedoms.

I can understand the concern that Federal entry into CCW could lead to increasingly intrusive federal requirements; that's certainly possible. I can understand that some might think that Congress doesn't have the power to enact such a law; I don't think I buy that, but one can make the argument. But State's Rights? Where you would claim that HR822 implicitly legitimizes state CCW laws, this argument explicitly does so.

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 08:19 PM
Really? What is your proof?
Proof? "Shall not be infringed" is "proof" enough for me.

The Sarge
November 14, 2011, 08:23 PM
States rights is under attack yet again.
CCW is a civil license. So if this passes do we then (States) have to recognize Gay Marriage if that "couple" has a license from a liberal state?
Now I submit carrying a gun (I feel) is protected under the US Constitution and Gay marriage is not. However......HB822 is the Feds opening another bag of worms.

Birch Knoll
November 14, 2011, 08:24 PM
Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary.I had one of those pre-1987 CCW permits in Florida. They were issued at the county level, and only valid in the county that issued them. You had to submit to a background investigation by the county sheriff, provide the make, model and serial number of any weapon to be carried, post a bond, and pray for a positive recommendation from the sheriff, and hope the county commission would vote to issue the permit. Then you could repeat for as many of Florida's 67 counties as you could stand.

Trust me, we've come a long way.

danez71
November 14, 2011, 08:25 PM
Constitution cowboy said:
The states don't have the right to infringe upon our RKBA, but you are willing to let the Feds bless all of the several states' infringements?

This is an example of where you start to lose my support of your arguement Woody.

Your statement above is like saying that because illegal immigrant children attend AZ schools, AZ is "blessing" the Feds failure in regards to immigration control.

Or that AZ is blessing illegal immigration by legitimizing their existance and allowing them to attend school.

Its simply not true and AZ is about to go the SCOTUS to fight the Feds on it.



I also dont buy into that HR822, if passed, would be ANOTHER layer of Fed law to unravel. HR822 would/could simply become another meaniless law on the books.

SCOTUS could end up ruling in the future that if a state has to allow either CC or OC or both. HB822 could be advantagous in some of those scenarios.

Birch Knoll
November 14, 2011, 08:29 PM
The very requirement of a license for a law abiding American to carry a weapon is unconstitutional

States rights is under attack yet again. CCW is a civil license.

Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?

LemmyCaution
November 14, 2011, 09:06 PM
Really? Prior to FL in 1987 no state had Shall Issue permits. Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary. So characterizing the expansion of that to where we are today as "encroachment" is, um, disingenuous at best. If this is encroachment, I want more of it.

Your statement above is factually false, as VT has had constitutional carry since 1776. We are not a shall issue state. We simply don't believe that one needs the permission of the state to defend oneself, at all.

You, apparently, do. As such, I'm not much interested in expanding your rights, until you can distinguish them from privileges.

Bubba613
November 14, 2011, 09:11 PM
Your statement above is factually false, as VT has had constitutional carry since 1776. We are not a shall issue state. We simply don't believe that one needs the permission of the state to defend oneself, at all.

My statement is factually true. As you yourself prove. No state, including VT had shall issue permits prior to FL.
I don't care what people in VT believe or don't believe.
Yes, we've come a long way. Imagine if some yoke had gone to the FL legislature and lobbied against carry permits because he considered them, with no basis, an infringement on a right that no one recognized. Talk about the good being the enemy of the perfect.

Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?
ttolhurst is online now Report Post Quick reply to this message
I'm still stuck on how you can be opposed to a law to expand RKBA while being in favor of it.

henschman
November 14, 2011, 10:39 PM
Certainly I believe that the right to bear arms is one of the many rights protected by the 14th Amendment's language "life, liberty, and property," but this law doesn't really do anything to address the infringement on the RKBA. As others have said, the RKBA is being infringed by states who require their govt's permission to go armed in public. All this law does is to make it easier for people to abide by these unconstitutional, anti-libertarian state laws when they travel.

Now a law that declared all State prohibitions on carrying weapons and all state licensure laws null and void I could get behind, as falling under Congress' power in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But I don't think that is the goal or the result of the law at hand. If it were challenged in Court its proponents would probably try to justify it under the commerce clause, :rolleyes: rather than the 14th Amendment like you guys are trying to do.

Birch Knoll
November 14, 2011, 11:05 PM
The text of the bill explicitly invokes Congress' authority under the 2nd and 14th amendments, as well as the right of interstate travel and the Commerce Clause.

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 14, 2011, 11:31 PM
forcing the several states to remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is.

You know, you lost a bit of credibility there. The bill says nothing about removing anything. All it says is that states must honor other states permits and those carrying from out of state must follow that state's laws. Those coming from OC states can't OC when they go to a place like Texas. If you have a permit in NH, why can't you carry in Mass? The only way we can get back to the way we were is through progress like this.

EDIT: Holy Crap! I need to get more sleep, I completely took what you said and thought you meant that the bill had that kind of language in it. I apologize for that, guess I'll stay out of this whole discussion now.:o

The Sarge
November 15, 2011, 07:05 AM
Don't you see a conflict between these two beliefs? If requiring a license to carry is unconstitutional, how can HR822 be an attack on State's Rights? If you have a right under the federal constitution to carry a weapon without needing a license, then there is no State Right to require licenses.

Don't you have to pick one of these viewpoints or the other? How can they both be true?
As I have said repeatedly.....this (HR822) only legitimizes an already unconstitutional situation. Adds yet another layer to defeat in the future to achieve true 2nd amendment rights.

Bubba613
November 15, 2011, 08:26 AM
We must destroy RKBA in order to save it!

The Sarge
November 15, 2011, 08:27 AM
Can you elaborate there? I fail to follow you at all.

Jeff H
November 15, 2011, 09:44 AM
According to the NRA's emails, there is a vote scheduled in the House today. I'll be more interested to see how well it fares in the Senate.

Birch Knoll
November 15, 2011, 09:58 AM
As I have said repeatedly.....this (HR822) only legitimizes an already unconstitutional situation. Adds yet another layer to defeat in the future to achieve true 2nd amendment rights.

Yes, I get that. But you also seemed to be saying that you believe that HR822 infringes State's Rights. Is that correct, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the belief that the 2nd Amendment doesn't permit the states to license carry?

Bubba613
November 15, 2011, 10:16 AM
It's a mess.
In order to oppose this bill those against must maintain that 1) any permit scheme is an infringement based on a simplistic reading of the Constitution, 2) The Constitution only grants Federal powers, 3) States are bound by the 2A of the Constitution.
It is easy to see the muddle this argument is. Either states are subject to Federal power (the supremacy clause) or they aren't. The bill itself cites several bases for Congressional power. The Commerce Clause is as valid here as it was in Civil Rights era cases and legislation, possibly more so since the law specifically affects individuals travelling from one state to another.
No one has offered a rationale for opposition. Merely dark murmurings about conspiracies and unConstitutional action.

mrreynolds
November 15, 2011, 11:08 AM
The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

H.R. 2900 (http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm)

Sky
November 15, 2011, 11:20 AM
The Facts About H.R. 822, the "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act"
Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked by anti-gun organizations and the media. Regrettably, even some so-called "pro-gun" organizations have joined with the anti-gun Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns to try to defeat this pro-gun bill.
This critically important legislation, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)
H.R. 822 would mark a major step forward for gun owners' rights by significantly expanding where permits are recognized. Dozens of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years, because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws, and a few deny recognition completely.
H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized in all states with some form of a permit system, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries.
Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on "states rights." States, however, don't have rights, they have powers. And while many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" in opposing this bill, several provisions in the U.S. Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the 14th Amendment (please see related article from last week's Grassroots Alert).
Next, despite what a few so-called "pro-gun" activists have argued, this bill would not create a federal licensing or registration system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for carry permits. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the FACTS about a few of their claims:
Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.
FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require-or even authorize-any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.
Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.
Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.
TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.
H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. Don't listen to false or misleading accusations; instead, read the bill and our fact sheet explaining its provisions. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year

henschman
November 15, 2011, 11:30 AM
This law would force all states to recognize permits issued by any state. It would basically have the effect of making every state like Oklahoma, which has full reciprocity. So it would allow everyone in the nation to get a non-resident permit from the state with the least requirements (probably Maine, where you don't have to give fingerprints, you can do a 20 minute online gun safety class to satisfy the training requirement, and it only costs $60), and every state in the union would have to honor it. Or am I missing something?

Birch Knoll
November 15, 2011, 11:54 AM
So it would allow everyone in the nation to get a non-resident permit from the state with the least requirements (probably Maine, where you don't have to give fingerprints, you can do a 20 minute online gun safety class to satisfy the training requirementSay what? This is what Maine requires for handgun safety training:

Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety.
The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing
authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof
that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a
course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a
federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms
instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as
knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the
state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other
document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that
the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraphGenerally, this means a course taught by an NRA-certified instructor, conducted to NRA standards. The last time I took one, it was probably 5 or 6 hours long.

Who's giving 20-minute online courses?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 15, 2011, 11:58 AM
After what Sky posted, this bears repeating:

To Whom It May Concern:

H.R. 822 is unconstitutional. The NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, available at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003, in the very first sentence, includes all the information needed to show the unconstitutionality where it says:

"H.R. 822, ... would allow ...

No law need be written, considered, or passed under the guise such law is necessary to allow We the People to exercise an inalienable right. It is an usurpation of power by ANY government to assume it has legitimate power to do so, under any pretense. The very title of this bill is oxymoronic. Why do we need an Act of Congress to exercise a right?

This is a bill from Congress that incorporates unconstitutional law from most of the several states that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those states' laws require people to obtain a permit or license to carry a firearm(or other arms in some states) either concealed, open or both, contrary to a Supreme Law of the Land; specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Those incorporated state's laws are all contrary to the first finding in the list of Congress's findings:

"(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense."

This bill proposes law that is contrary to Congress's third finding:

"(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Indeed Congress does have that power. However, nothing in this bill protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. To the contrary, as stated previously, this bill would incorporate existing unconstitutional state law that makes it necessary for an individual to acquire a permit or license to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.

This bill, if it were to become law, will amount to recognition by Congress that all the unconstitutional state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are legitimate.

This bill, if enacted, already contains all the necessary verbiage for the Federal Government to create federal standards for licensing. The proposed new section 'Sec. 926D.(a), contains the following:

"..., a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, ..."

All Congress would need to do is expand that Federal law, such as has been done in the passage of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that included the Lautenberg Amendment that added persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse, to the list of prohibited persons.

This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.

I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.

Sincerely, Woody

Sky
November 15, 2011, 12:27 PM
This proposed act is a can of worms the Federal Government should not get its hooks into, and is, in fact, in an arena government is explicitly prohibited to infringe upon.

I oppose this bill and I am disappointed with the NRA-ILA's support of it. It will further entrench unconstitutional state laws, making it more difficult to eradicate those laws, and thus is counter productive to the NRA's efforts to remove those laws. Like that old saw that asks the question, "When did you stop beating your wife," a person could ask something similar of the NRA-ILA.

Unfortunately I agree that in many cases if you give an inch they will take enough rope to hang you.....We will see what happens...always two sides of a coin.

henschman
November 15, 2011, 12:30 PM
Say what? This is what Maine requires for handgun safety training:
Quote:
Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety.
The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing
authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof
that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a
course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a
federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms
instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as
knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the
state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other
document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that
the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph
Generally, this means a course taught by an NRA-certified instructor, conducted to NRA standards. The last time I took one, it was probably 5 or 6 hours long.

Who's giving 20-minute online courses?

Read the part I bolded in your quote above.

The Maryland Police Training Commission offers an online gun safety course that only takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete, and includes handgun safety. It even prints you out a nice nifty certificate of completion at the end.

For a guy who lives in Oklahoma, which already has full reciprocity, it sure beats the Oklahoma CCL, which costs a lot more money to get, requires you to jump through a lot more hoops, and takes a longer time on average before you're approved. The only downsides are that it isn't recongized by as many other states and it wouldn't serve as an affirmative defense to a prosecution under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

I still don't like being told to get ANYONE'S permission in order to keep from being assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed by the State for exercising a natural right, but I suppose it is less of an infringement than the Oklahoma CCL.

And if the effect of this national concealed carry law would be to lessen the infringement that is currently taking place by the states, by allowing everyone to get a non-resident permit from a less violative jurisdiction that imposes less of a prior restraint on the right, I suppose there might be a valid 14th Amendment justification for it. I suppose it could start a "race to the bottom," since every state would be required to recognize permits from the state with the least requirements. I suppose a state could start issuing a piece of paper to anyone, resident or non-resident, stamped "concealed carry license," with no requirements at all, and all other states would have to honor it.

Birch Knoll
November 15, 2011, 01:45 PM
The Maryland Police Training Commission offers an online gun safety course that only takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete, and includes handgun safety. It even prints you out a nice nifty certificate of completion at the end. Very interesting! I wonder if Maine would actually accept that training? Since the documentation of training is essentially a self-certified document, I'd be a little skeptical. I will contact the Maine State Police lieutenant responsible for weapons licenses and see what he has to say.

Thanks for the information.

LemmyCaution
November 15, 2011, 01:49 PM
My statement is factually true. As you yourself prove. No state, including VT had shall issue permits prior to FL.

You are mistaken. You said:

Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary.

This is objectively false.

While it's nice that the rest of the country is coming along and slowly catching up to VT, any effort to so do which takes VT backward I am going to oppose.

You have adequately stated your view that the permitting regime constitutes a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment. It would follow that you would have no problem with a federal permitting regime. Such a regime would overrule VT's constitutional carry protection. Such a federal regime is also the logical outcome of any thought experiment that tries to imagine New York being forced to allow any Vermonter to carry concealed with no restrictions. None of the states that ban the concealed carry of firearms without special permission of the state will stand for it. You know this. You don't have a problem with this. But you won't be honest about it.

HR822 makes a commerce clause argument for the federal government's involvement in a permitting regime, thereby legitimating permitting generally at the federal level. This is a step backwards for the states with constitutional carry. Though it may advance the privileges of citizens in the more backwards states, that isn't a strong enough argument.

As such, I do not support this bill.

Bubba613
November 15, 2011, 03:40 PM
You have adequately stated your view that the permitting regime constitutes a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment. It would follow that you would have no problem with a federal permitting regime. Such a regime would overrule VT's constitutional carry protection. Such a federal regime is also the logical outcome of any thought experiment that tries to imagine New York being forced to allow any Vermonter to carry concealed with no restrictions. None of the states that ban the concealed carry of firearms without special permission of the state will stand for it. You know this. You don't have a problem with this. But you won't be honest about it.
First you put words in my mouth. Then you call me dishonest. I think the discussion is nearing its end.
It is not my view that permitting passes Constitutional muster. It is the view of the Supreme Court. There is no proposal anywhere for a federal permit. So you cannot say whether I support it or not.
Alaska and Arizona to my knowledge issue permits for those who want them, for precisely this purpose. That is true today. The House bill does nothingt o change that or its reasons. Why Vermont is backward in this respect is beyond me, but maybe something to take up with their legislators.

LemmyCaution
November 15, 2011, 04:35 PM
First you put words in my mouth. Then you call me dishonest. I think the discussion is nearing its end.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm merely summarizing the implication of what you're asserting in favor of this bill. And I don't think you're being particularly honest. And I do agree that this discussion is going nowhere.

As to your assertion that VT is backward because it does not offer permits for an activity it does not prohibit, well… you're just making my argument for me- that you think permits are a good thing. I'm not going to speculate about why you think the 2A should be a privilege. But I will assert that you do.

This bill does nothing to advance the right protected by the Second Amendment. It does advance the privileges of people the state deems worthy. That holds no interest for me.

danez71
November 15, 2011, 07:39 PM
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm merely summarizing the implication of what you're asserting in favor of this bill.

Even when you re-worded that, it still sounds like youre putting words into his mouth.... IMO

As to your assertion that VT is backward because it does not offer permits for an activity it does not prohibit, well… you're just making my argument for me- that you think permits are a good thing. I'm not going to speculate about why you think the 2A should be a privilege. But I will assert that you do.

Well, there ya go again.... unless I'm misreading things :confused:

Seriously, I dont get that impression from Bubba at all.

Dave Workman
November 15, 2011, 09:22 PM
Nat’l CCW bill passes House; Dems solid ‘Nays’


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/nat-l-ccw-bill-passes-house-dems-solid-nays-including-inslee


There's a link in this column that allows you all to see how YOUR representative voted.

All of the NO votes were Democrats. Not a single Republican voted against it.

There were about a dozen no-shows.

Birch Knoll
November 15, 2011, 09:27 PM
Well, good.

I wonder if it'll even see a vote in the Senate.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 15, 2011, 10:51 PM
Well, crap.

I hope it'll never see a vote in the Senate.

Woody

Edited to add: I understand it was only a vote to cosider HR 822 or something like that. I'll hold my crap for now.

Bubba613
November 16, 2011, 07:20 AM
Yeah, can't have all those people toting guns in other states. Who knows where that might lead??
I recall Congress considered something like this in the opening days of the Obama Administration and it didnt go anywhere.

The Sarge
November 16, 2011, 08:27 AM
I fail to find any final vote on this in Congress yesterday or last night. You guys sure about this information? I think it is bogus.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 16, 2011, 11:55 AM
Yeah, can't have all those people toting guns in other states.

Not your way. The constitutional way is the way to go.

Woody

Bubba613
November 16, 2011, 01:56 PM
Not your way. The constitutional way is the way to go.

To me I either have a gun legally on my person or I don't. I don't care about the details. I would imagine most people feel that way.

jojo200517
November 16, 2011, 02:31 PM
If anyone wants to see whats going on C-SPAN is broadcasting the US House right now and this is what they are discussing.

If you want you can watch online also. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

mrreynolds
November 16, 2011, 02:33 PM
I'm tired of each Anti calling us licensed criminals in their eyes.

jojo200517
November 16, 2011, 02:40 PM
I'm tired of each Anti calling us licensed criminals in their eyes.

Yeah I was watching but I had to stop, was yelling way too many low road things at the computer monitor.

mrreynolds
November 16, 2011, 02:46 PM
Yeah I was watching but I had to stop, was yelling way too many low road things at the computer monitor.
My question is if it's more dangerous why isn't everyone in Vermont suffering from gunshot wounds? What is all this bs about rural vs city crime is crime. I don't want to be a victim on farmland or at Madison Square Garden.

jojo200517
November 16, 2011, 05:51 PM
Well I flipped back over to c-span and it looks like it just passed, the main portion of the bill. Not sure which if any of the amendments passed.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 16, 2011, 08:40 PM
One amendment was attached. It has something to with a "study" of some sort.

Woody

JohnnyK
November 16, 2011, 10:43 PM
YAY, it passed the house!... anyone see any chance of it passing the Senate? then, I guess it would have to get autograph by Obama to become law? anyone see that happening? may be a slick move to gain gun owners support for election... what do you think... I have relatives in NY and CT that I won't see as my TX CHL isn't valid there... and I refuse to travel without my G23 bodyguard...

Evergreen
November 16, 2011, 11:38 PM
I just got the email today from the NRA stating that the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity legislation has passed the house. I am a bit ignorant on the process of how bills introduced in the government are passed into law. What I would really like to know is when I will be able to go to other states that currently do not recognize my out-of-state permit and be able to carry there legally, without risk of being persecuted or incriminated for doing so. I live in Idaho and have family in Oregon. I plan on making several trips to Oregon and after I left Oregon my Oregon CHL was deemed invalid. Considering Oregon does not recognize any out-of-state permits, I am forced to apply in the only county that will issue out-of-state permits which is about 4 hours from where I live by driving.

What I like to know is when this bill will, or if, it will be turned into law so I can go carry a concealed handgun in Oregon and hopefully California as well. Both of these states I know issue carry permits to their residents, so therefore it sounds as if they would be bound under this law to recognize all out-of-state people with carry permits. Also, I am wondering if this law would enable residents of states that are hard to obtain permits, like Hawaii, the ability to circumvent strict state laws by obtaining permits from states like Utah or Florida. Most likely it is only out-of-state residents who will benefit from this legislation.

My main question is when is this actually going to happen. The NRA keeps sending me endless emails about it and I want to know exactly what is going on.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 12:04 AM
It's probably not going to happen during this Congress. It's very hard to see how this bill could possibly survive the Senate. It's questionable whether it would even come to a vote in that house. And even if by some extraordinary miracle the Senate approved it, it's unlikely that the President would sign it.

Maybe one day. But not real soon.

O C
November 17, 2011, 12:05 AM
I believe the House bill goes to the Senate, then (If it passes ) to the President. If there was a similar bill in the Senate they would go to a committee to be reconciled, then to the President. Still a long ways to go, we'll separate the sheep from the goats when it hits the Senate. Harry Reid has always been a pro-gun person and now is the time he either puts up or shuts up. He controls what is brought to the floor for a vote. So, if he is in Obama's pocket on back door gun control, he can shelve the bill and it dies in the Senate. On the other hand, gun control is a hot potato and Democrats up for re-election are running scared. We might get this through the Senate, and Obama will have to show his colors to veto it.

scythefwd
November 17, 2011, 12:11 AM
Not going to happen. Might get a simple majority in the Senate, but nothing that is veto proof. President Obama will veto it. His 2A stance is pretty clear... He's a Chicago politician, bred and raised.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 12:13 AM
I'll be surprised if it ever comes to a vote in the Senate.

Snowbandit
November 17, 2011, 12:15 AM
The bill is a ruse. At its core it's not about guns at all. This is an attempt by the Federal government to usurp states rights and force the acceptance of state issued licenses, some of which are far less appealing than concealed weapon permits. We need to be very careful of this bill because there is a hidden agenda behind it that some of us will not approve of.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms and forbids the Federal government from tampering with that right. The 14th Amendment applies the 2nd to the states and no further permits should be needed. I'm very wary of this bill.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 12:19 AM
This is an attempt by the Federal government to usurp states rights and force the acceptance of state issued licenses, some of which are far less appealing than concealed weapon permits.

I wonder to what you could possibly be referring?

Zoogster
November 17, 2011, 12:54 AM
The House is based on the population, districts are designed to all have relatively the same number of people based on the Census. There is 435 voting districts and so you can divide the population of the US in the most recent census by 435 to get the approximate number of people in each district.
The average based on the 2000 Census was 646,259 people per Congressional district.

Now districts can be drawn up to favor one party or another, giving one more or less districts, but there is a limit to how odd the shape can be before its too obviously ridiculous. So generally the House reflects the desires of the people more.


The Senate on the other hand has nothing to do with population, instead every state has 2 senators.
This for example makes California (~37 million legal citizens people) and Texas (25 million legal citizens) only as powerful as Wyoming (around .5 million people, and interestingly enough also the smallest House District as well) in the Senate. This means Wyoming representatives in the Senate and at this point the House as well, are the most over represented people in the nation per capita of representation.
The Senate has similar power to the House, yet there is only 100 of them, making their votes clearly more powerful per person.
This gives disproportionate power to smaller states.
This means even if the population overall is pro-gun, you are subject the the whim of 25+1 states, no matter how small or large.
While the US population (Represented by the House) in general might be more pro gun at this point, there is more small states (represented by the Senate) that have elected representatives not favorable to gun rights to the Senate.

Anything perceived to be pro-gun is unlikely to make it through the Senate. Even the idea of it being a possible step towards more federal control of firearm licensing requirements is unlikely to sway the anti-gun Senators enough to pass something generally perceived as pro-gun.
So such a bill is more symbolic in the House.
If it somehow managed to make it through the Senate with a marginal victory it would need Obama's signature, which is unlikely.

So it is not going anywhere at this point, and will not be for a couple years at a minimum.

RhinoDefense
November 17, 2011, 01:06 AM
Exactly. If it passes the Senate, Obama will veto it. We don't have a veto-proof vote in either House or Senate, so it's dead.

Don't get hopeful, forget about the NRA and their 1% membership of the population.

leadcounsel
November 17, 2011, 01:06 AM
With an election year coming up, there are likely alterior motives at play.

This could be a call to "take sides" for various people, to prove their loyalty to either the pro or anti-gun stances.

One could argue that it won't come to a vote, or that it will come to a vote in the Senate and fail or pass, depending on the 2A loyalty and who's up for election. And then Obama may or may not sign it, depending on where he gets the most poltical bang - with his base or trying to win over independents or even some votes on the right as a pro-2A guy....

Time will tell.

Neverwinter
November 17, 2011, 03:15 AM
Now districts can be drawn up to favor one party or another, giving one more or less districts, but there is occasionally a limit to how odd the shape can be before its too obviously ridiculous, and even then it takes the Supreme Court to stop them. So generally the House reflects the desires of the people who gerrymandered the districts more.
Fixed.

If it passes the Senate, Obama will veto it.
And the basis for this conclusion is? Obama's term has shown that there isn't an opposition to the passage of pro-gun legislation.

Carl N. Brown
November 17, 2011, 06:49 AM
One of the themes of the gun control movement in the 1960s was "we just want to register guns and license owners like car registration and drivers license" when it was obvious that the Sullivan Act particularly as implemented in NYC used registration and licensing to as defacto prohibition to all but the privileged. I made a point in the late 1950s, early 1960s, to go to the public library periodically and use the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, subject Firearms Legislation, to follow up on what gun control advocates were saying to their own in mainstream magazines: there was a huge movement to ban or at minimum pile on so many restrictions as make gun ownership impossible. I have a collection of quotes by gun banners, and Don Kates and Gary Kleck have collections also in academic articles that try to explain gun rights supporters' skecpticism about the intents of the gun control movement. But still the anti-gunners talked amongst themselves of increasing restrictions to the level of defacto prohibition while publicly they kept up the rhetoric of only wanting to regulate guns like cars, claiming that the NRA was just being extremist.

OK, here's a chance to treat carry permits like drivers license, and what is the rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd?

19-3Ben
November 17, 2011, 07:58 AM
I live in CT and have my permit. I would love to be able to travel to NY and MA without having to plan ahead and drop the gun off at the my house.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 08:02 AM
I find it amazing that so many in the firearms community are so eager to trample on the Constitution when it suits their purpose. This law should never have seen the light of day, as this is purely a state matter.

R.W.Dale
November 17, 2011, 08:13 AM
I find it amazing that so many in the firearms community are so eager to trample on the Constitution when it suits their purpose. This law should never have seen the light of day, as this is purely a state matter.

How do you figure it's up to the individual states determine how much to limit our 2a rights? Would you be OK with states limitations on 1a rights? What about if Utah decided women shouldn't vote? Would you carry the states rights banner for that cause?

posted via tapatalk using android.

The Sarge
November 17, 2011, 08:48 AM
How do you figure it's up to the individual states determine how much to limit our 2a rights? Would you be OK with states limitations on 1a rights? What about if Utah decided women shouldn't vote? Would you carry the states rights banner for that cause?
Sir...nobody is arguing the 2nd amendment here. What is being discussed is the Federal Government getting involved in the right to carry. Yet another layer to overcome, to achieve true constitutional carry.

As for your extreme hypothetical, the State would be sued in a court of law for violating constitutional rights. Just as states have been sued for violating 2nd amendment rights.

The Feds and Washington DC have no business, nor constitutional authority, to do this. I see this (clearly) as the Feds overstepping and adding more bureaucracy to the right to carry.

Bubba613
November 17, 2011, 09:58 AM
The hypothetical is correct. The 2A is no less a part of the Constitution than the 1A or any other part. Just as the Feds step in to enforce those parts so too they do that here.
It is nothing short of hilarious to watch so-called pro-gun people argue for more restrictions on the right.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 10:31 AM
How do you figure it's up to the individual states determine how much to limit our 2a rights? Would you be OK with states limitations on 1a rights? What about if Utah decided women shouldn't vote? Would you carry the states rights banner for that cause?
It is nothing short of hilarious to watch so-called pro-gun people argue for more restrictions on the right.
It's no less hilarious to watch those who believe that the 2nd amendment trumps all other. Ever heard of the 10th amendment? You ought to read it sometime, you might learn something. Just as there is nothing in the 2nd amendment justifying firearm regulation by the federal government, there is likewise nothing in the 10th allowing the federal government any say whatever in state regulation governing methods of carry. The only proper way to achieve the ends this law proposes is amending the Constitution. Anything else is a violation of it.

Bubba613
November 17, 2011, 10:38 AM
Um, the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" shall not be abridged. That makes the Fed's role explicit here, trumping any 10thA concerns.
If you were happy with McDonald incorporating the 2A in the BoR, then you can't have any objection to this.

SSN Vet
November 17, 2011, 11:10 AM
And the basis for this conclusion is? Obama's term has shown that there isn't an opposition to the passage of pro-gun legislation

They tied the concealed carry in national parks bill to other items the prez. wanted more.

Perhaps I'm misinformed....

Care to detail all the pro-gun legislation that O-man is supportive of?

ErikO
November 17, 2011, 11:19 AM
There is a growing RKBA movement in the Dem camp, unfortunately we're facing a lot of wrong-headed opposition. As long as other Blue Steel Dems like myself keep them to task we could see RKBA no longer be the wedge issue it is today within the decade if not sooner.

As long as the GAO study is the only one of the amendments that made it in under the wire this should be a good bill. Yes, it does set the cause for Constitutional Carry back, but not as bad as several other laws that were passed since the '80's.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 11:26 AM
Um, the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" shall not be abridged. That makes the Fed's role explicit here, trumping any 10thA concerns.
If you were happy with McDonald incorporating the 2A in the BoR, then you can't have any objection to this.
Go back and actually read McDonald...based on the method SCOTUS used for incorporation, there is very definitely concern with violations of the 10th.
And the word is "infringed", not "abridged". Couple that with the court decisions that NO right is absolute...regardless of how worded. You can try to wishfully think that away all you like, but it won't change the truth of it.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 12:40 PM
Yes, but...

If states can constitutionally enact certain non-infringing regulations concerning the carrying of weapons, those regulations would probably mostly concern the manner of carry and justifiable time and place limitations. Limitations on who may carry are far less defensible under the 2nd and 14th amendments. HR822 would not affect those manner, time and place restrictions, only the constitutionally-suspect qualifications on who may carry.

Formula94
November 17, 2011, 12:42 PM
If you all want to read the bill for yourselves and not rely on any internet forum or whatever group you are a member of

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp112:FLD010:@1%28hr277%29

Formula94
November 17, 2011, 12:46 PM
Personally, I think if you do have a carry permit, you should be able to carry in any other state that also has a permit. As a caveat though, I believe that in order to obtain a carry permit from any state, you should have to undergo a training/class session(s), have to go through mental health and criminal background screening. I know most everyone already has to go through this, I just believe it should be uniform. I also don't think this bill would allow people from constitutional carry states who do not have a carry permit to carry in other states. I could be wrong about that though.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 12:52 PM
I agree that training is highly recommended, but how do you square requiring training with the individual right to bear arms? Then right should not be conditioned on training, no matter how advisable it may be.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 17, 2011, 12:58 PM
This gives disproportionate power to smaller states.

Not really. It assures equal power in the Senate to the states, each state having two. It is a check on the states with large populations holding more power in the House than the smaller states. The people as a whole are equally represented in the House regardless of the state boundaries, and the interests of the several states are equally represented in the Senate. Anything that passes constitutional muster should never pass unless it is in the interest of the people as well as of the several states. Sadly, the Seventeenth Amendment has nearly gutted that balance.

Woody

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 01:07 PM
Yes, but...

If states can constitutionally enact certain non-infringing regulations concerning the carrying of weapons, those regulations would probably mostly concern the manner of carry and justifiable time and place limitations. Limitations on who may carry are far less defensible under the 2nd and 14th amendments. HR822 would not affect those manner, time and place restrictions, only the constitutionally-suspect qualifications on who may carry.
as CC is a manner of carry, as is OC...

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 01:24 PM
as CC is a manner of carry, as is OC...

Uh huh... I'm sure you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Would you elaborate?

leadcounsel
November 17, 2011, 01:25 PM
Isn't the US Constitutional Federal authority? Why can't the feds simply say that states should recognize other states carry laws? I see no restrictions, only loosening restrictions. This is beneficial for the 2A and gun owners.

Sky
November 17, 2011, 01:30 PM
What are the chances of it getting through the Senate unscathed and then getting signed by the current Regime err Commander and Chief?
Think the odds are about the same as putting all our money on the #8 of a Roulette wheel; Maybe not as good....Heard Fox today with some Democrat using the blood in the streets argument again and saying how we would all be better if we got guns off the streets in America. We will see.......

Neverwinter
November 17, 2011, 02:15 PM
They tied the concealed carry in national parks bill to other items the prez. wanted more.

Perhaps I'm misinformed....

Care to detail all the pro-gun legislation that O-man is supportive of?You made a rather large cognitive leap from my historical observation of the lack of opposition in his presidential term into a request for proof of support.

It still becomes law if he doesn't sign it.
What are the chances of it getting through the Senate unscathed and then getting signed by the current Regime err Commander and Chief?
Think the odds are about the same as putting all our money on the #8 of a Roulette wheel; Maybe not as good....Heard Fox today with some Democrat using the blood in the streets argument again and saying how we would all be better if we got guns off the streets in America. We will see.......
If you need to see it pass through the Senate, attach a non-2A bill amendment that improves the rights that they are interested in. Such as a repeal of the DOMA. It's a win-win for civil liberties.

Sent using Tapatalk

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 02:20 PM
If you need to see it pass through the Senate, attach a non-2A bill amendment that improves the rights that they are interested in. Such as a repeal of the DOMA. It's a win-win for civil liberties.

That works for me.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 03:02 PM
Uh huh... I'm sure you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Would you elaborate?

The law in question is about CCW, which isn't about training, background checks etc. except as required to get the permit to carry concealed. Therefore, it's all about method of carry, which is within the state purview to regulate.

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 03:14 PM
But HR822 only applies to states which already permit concealed carry, and all of the state's laws regarding the manner of carry remain in place, so that's not stepping on the state's prerogative to regulate the "how" of CCW.

HR822 only affects the "who" of CCW, which, aside from some basic disqualifiers (felony record, mental illness, etc.), should be beyond the state's legitimate power to control.

So where's the constitutional problem?

The Termite
November 17, 2011, 04:58 PM
My $.02 worth:

I think Harry Reid is going to do a head count, realize that it will fail, and bring it to the floor for a vote. It will fail, by 3-6 votes, mostly along party lines.

charliehustle10
November 17, 2011, 05:19 PM
Obama doesn't have to sign it for it to pass. He just has to not veto it.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 07:19 PM
So where's the constitutional problem?
With each state determining what will constitute legal CC with their own boundaries. State A requires x to issue. State B requires x+y, but potentially must now honor A's permits.

danez71
November 17, 2011, 08:13 PM
With each state determining what will constitute legal CC with their own boundaries. State A requires x to issue. State B requires x+y, but potentially must now honor A's permits.

Which is exactly how drivers licenses work in this country and that seems to work out A-OK.


Isn't the US Constitutional Federal authority? Why can't the feds simply say that states should recognize other states carry laws? I see no restrictions, only loosening restrictions. This is beneficial for the 2A and gun owners.

BINGO.... as far as I can see.



Reading through this thread its appearent that those that are against HR822 are against it for two main reasons.

1) I violates some right of indivigual States that allows the State to regulate CC. (did realize states had "rights")

or

2) It legitmizes to some degree (not support, not condone, etc IMO) the idea that States should not be able to regulate CC and CC is completely protected under the 2A.

These are mutually exclusive of each other.

Zundfolge
November 17, 2011, 08:39 PM
America is long dead, the constitution is long dead, we don't have any rights anymore, we only have privileges at the benevolence of the national government that rules us (we don't have a federal government anymore either) so if we can get one more privilege handed down from our overlords I'm all for it.

:evil:

Birch Knoll
November 17, 2011, 10:06 PM
With each state determining what will constitute legal CC with their own boundaries. State A requires x to issue. State B requires x+y, but potentially must now honor A's permits.

But it's not in the state's power to set additional requirements above and beyond what may be permitted by the 2nd amendment. They might be able to require that you be 18 years of age, and have no felony convictions or mental illness, for instance. But requirements for training, or bonds or personal references, or a showing of need, or just plain discretionary issuance are all beyond the power of the state to impose under the 2nd amendment.

HR822 can't infringe powers which the states do not possess.

Fleet
November 17, 2011, 11:12 PM
But it's not in the state's power to set additional requirements above and beyond what may be permitted by the 2nd amendment. They might be able to require that you be 18 years of age, and have no felony convictions or mental illness, for instance. But requirements for training, or bonds or personal references, or a showing of need, or just plain discretionary issuance are all beyond the power of the state to impose under the 2nd amendment.

HR822 can't infringe powers which the states do not possess.
Now you're grasping at straws. The state firearm laws that have been ruled unconstitutional can be counted on one hand, with fingers to spare. Yes, these things are within the power of the states to regulate, as reserved to them by the 10th amendment, prior to McDonald. Since McDonald, how many have been shot down...take a good guess at the number.

jackpot
November 17, 2011, 11:33 PM
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Does this make the list available to the Federal Govt. too?

RinkRat
November 18, 2011, 12:21 AM
^^^ there ya go ... be-careful what you wish for.

And why wouldn't it be available if LEO's can access the database?

For all we know they, the ATF, can find out already??

If that is Amendment #4 what are the First Three???

Where can we read what the bill consists of as of today????

If their are Amendments made after it Passes the House, does it need to go back since it isn't what they passed?????

Bubba613
November 18, 2011, 03:42 AM
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Sheila Jackson Lee is an idiot.
I would bet states already have databases that contain that information. In TN it is keyed to the driver's license so any time a cop stops someone they know whether that person has a permit or not. What state issues permits but doesn't keep a record of it?

Birch Knoll
November 18, 2011, 08:11 AM
Now you're grasping at straws. I'm presenting an argument. Many here believe that the 2A "is their carry permit", but also believe that HR822 violates state's rights. I'm simply arguing that if the 2A protects their right to carry, then HR822 cannot infringe state's rights, as it only requires the states to refrain from doing what they are already forbidden to do - deny the right to carry.

The state firearm laws that have been ruled unconstitutional can be counted on one hand, with fingers to spare.Yes, but McDonald was decided only in 2010, and it changes the playing field. CCW laws that passed muster before McDonald may not be so safe now, particularly with respect to restrictions and conditions on issuance.

Yes, these things are within the power of the states to regulate, as reserved to them by the 10th amendment, prior to McDonald. Since McDonald, how many have been shot down...take a good guess at the number.I don't know of any. But then again, McDonald was a whopping 17 months ago.

Birch Knoll
November 18, 2011, 08:16 AM
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment 4 was defeated. All amendments but one were defeated. The one which was agreed to requires a GAO study of the ability of LEOs to verify out-of-state CCW permits.

danez71
November 18, 2011, 09:30 AM
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.


Anyone that doesnt think this is already basicaly happening is fooling themselves.


If a Govt agency gives you anything... they have a record of it somewhere. If the Feds or another state asked for it for crime, for example, they'd hand it over. The admendment would just formalize this.

Point is, tin foil hat concerns over things like this are a little late. The genie was let out of the bottle many years ago.... lists have been made and they have them.... and the lists will never go away.

....I'm simply arguing that if the 2A protects their right to carry, than HR822 cannot infringe state's rights....


Agreed.


I like to be convinced I'm wrong because that means I've learned something.

No ones been able to reconcile those two arguements against this bill and have really only provided fodder as to what could happen.

The Termite
November 18, 2011, 02:53 PM
Sheila Jackson Lee is an idiot.

That's putting it kindly. I would have called her "dumb as a box of rocks".

It boggles my mind that she keeps getting re-elected.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 20, 2011, 06:17 PM
IT HAS BEGUN.

I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.

On Tuesday November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) S. 436. Dubbed by anti-gunners the “Fix Gun Checks Act,” rather than “fix” the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the legislation would eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them and expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms. (Emphasis added by me.)


Here is a link to it: NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7179)

Woody

Ole Humpback
November 20, 2011, 06:36 PM
IT HAS BEGUN.

I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excerpted from NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11
On Tuesday November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) S. 436. Dubbed by anti-gunners the “Fix Gun Checks Act,” rather than “fix” the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the legislation would eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them and expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms. (Emphasis added by me.)

Here is a link to it: NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11

Woody

We need for this not to pass in any way, shape, or form. Other states are already getting going on the reciprocity bus, so lets let the 10th Amendment do its job. Good catch there as I had not seen this yet.

Librarian
November 20, 2011, 06:37 PM
Woody, would you please explain 'how HR 822 is a mechanism' for anything to do with Schumer's S 436?

rmodel65
November 20, 2011, 07:26 PM
Sheila Jackson Lee is an idiot.
I would bet states already have databases that contain that information. In TN it is keyed to the driver's license so any time a cop stops someone they know whether that person has a permit or not. What state issues permits but doesn't keep a record of it?



no database in GA you want to check a permit out you have to call the probate judge who issued the permit GA has 159 probate judges

Bubba613
November 20, 2011, 07:30 PM
Woody, would you please explain 'how HR 822 is a mechanism' for anything to do with Schumer's S 436?
Well, teh same people who are in favor of 822 are in favor of Schumer's bill. Actually Schumer was opposed to 822. So I really don't know. But there must be a connection there somewhere.

Ole Humpback
November 20, 2011, 07:37 PM
Woody, would you please explain 'how HR 822 is a mechanism' for anything to do with Schumer's S 436?

I think this goes to the Federal Gov't telling the states that Concealed Carry is now an issue to be handeled by the Federal Gov't. Once the Feds start saying where you can & cannot carry in the USA, they can also start adding all those pesky rules to who, what, when, & how for Concealed Carry.

Bubba613
November 20, 2011, 07:47 PM
I think this goes to the Federal Gov't telling the states that Concealed Carry is now an issue to be handeled by the Federal Gov't. Once the Feds start saying where you can & cannot carry in the USA, they can also start adding all those pesky rules to who, what, when, & how for Concealed Carry.
Actually no one is saying that. Firearms ownership is a federal issue and has been since 1968. Schumer's bill, which doesnt have a prayer, is about background checks, not carry.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 20, 2011, 07:49 PM
See what I highlighted in Post #154? The list of prohibited persons is part and parcel of HR 822. I warned about how easy it would be for Congress to expand that list in Post #83. S 346 seeks to do that.

I wonder if anyone on the Board of Directors of the NRA was/is aware of S 346 and how it segues so well with HR 822 ...

Woody

dogmush
November 20, 2011, 08:00 PM
See what I highlighted in Post #154? The list of prohibited persons is part and parcel of HR 822. I warned about how easy it would be for Congress to expand that list in Post #83. S 346 seeks to do that.

The list of people prohibited from owning firearms is part of GCA '68. It has nothing at all to do with carry or HR 822. I fail to see how Schumer introducing again his annual bill to "close the gunshow loophole" has any bearing at all on HR 822.

beatledog7
November 20, 2011, 08:18 PM
It'll all be made clear if 822 gets signed into law.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 20, 2011, 08:24 PM
It has nothing at all to do with carry or HR 822.

I can only assume you've never read HR 822. It's in there.

Woody

Rail Driver
November 20, 2011, 08:28 PM
I can only assume you've never read HR 822. It's in there.

Woody
Please show me where?

H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Referred in Senate - RFS)

HR 822 RFS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 17, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

`(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.

(b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c112bNvI1S::

ConstitutionCowboy
November 20, 2011, 08:39 PM
Please show me where?

Look for the big red letters.



H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Referred in Senate - RFS)

HR 822 RFS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 17, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

`(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.

(b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

Woody

I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things, and just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood

N003k
November 20, 2011, 08:49 PM
ConstitutionCowboy...really? Yet, all it does is basically say that it doesnt cover people ALREADY prohibited from purchasing under federal law...you know, the people that wont get approved if they fill out a 4473 honestly. They ALREADY cover that, you are SERIOUSLY reaching for straws if you're going to claim a boiler plate part of the law is opening the floodgates for laws like this to somehow now magically succeed.

Rail Driver
November 20, 2011, 08:59 PM
ConstitutionCowboy...really? Yet, all it does is basically say that it doesnt cover people ALREADY prohibited from purchasing under federal law...you know, the people that wont get approved if they fill out a 4473 honestly. They ALREADY cover that, you are SERIOUSLY reaching for straws if you're going to claim a boiler plate part of the law is opening the floodgates for laws like this to somehow now magically succeed.
Thanks for mentioning that.

I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.


A standard clause referencing a pre-existing restriction is not going to open any doors for anything. HR 822 does not expand federal control over anything. It does not take any power from the States. Your highlighted clause simply states that this particular bill (HR 822) will not apply to already prohibited persons. There is NO PROVISION IN THE BILL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY THAT LIST IN ANY WAY.

The bill you cited has been introduced annually (that means every year) for quite some time now, and has never even come close to passing. It is one of literally hundreds of time consuming, useless drivel that won't pass but does serve the purpose of gumming up the House and Senate, thereby delaying pro-gun (and any other) legislation. These legislators that introduce these extremist bills know what they're doing, and they know their bills aren't going to pass, but they submit hundreds of them because each bill submitted has to be addressed if there is time. The more garbage legislation introduced, the longer it takes for actual valid legislation to be heard.

*Edit to add: You also ignored the second half of the clause you highlighted:

and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device)

As you can clearly see, the power remains WITH THE STATE ISSUING THE PERMIT.

Birch Knoll
November 20, 2011, 09:04 PM
I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.

Uh-huh. Because Chuck Schumer would never introduce anti-gun legislation, unless HR822 opened the door for him. Amazing that HR822 can do that even without becoming law.

Ole Humpback
November 20, 2011, 09:40 PM
Uh-huh. Because Chuck Schumer would never introduce anti-gun legislation, unless HR822 opened the door for him. Amazing that HR822 can do that even without becoming law.

Anti-gun legislation by itself more than likely wouldn't make it on its own. But a pro-gun piece of FEDERAL legislation that uses a key piece of anti-gun legislation to function as the control mechanism is what opens the door.

As far as I understand the matter, Concealed Carry is not currently a Federally controlled item. The states issue the permits and each state has differing rules on obtaining a Concealed Carry permit. This would kick Concealed Carry up to the Federal level and then instead of each state deciding for itself as to who is qualified to obtain the permit, you have the federal gov't doing the same thing. This one provision would give the Federal gov't the control to decide who is or isn't allowed to get a permit:

a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

Most states have shall issue stances on there permitting process. Can anyone point me to where the BATF has a shall issue stance on concealed carry? Given the BATF's flagrant violations of laws itself have wrote, what makes anyone think they will be the guardians of the 2A & RKBA?

Remember, this nations legal system works on precedents. Once a precedent is set, you can build almost anything you want off of it if you have the right argument. This bill would be a conduit for all sorts of anti-gun legislation if it passed because every anti-gun bill introduced would reference the part of this bill that delegates the decision of who is a qualified permit recipient to the federal gov't.

N003k
November 20, 2011, 09:42 PM
Ole Humpback, can you point me to a state that will knowingly issue someone prohibited from possessing a firearm under current standing FEDERAL law a permit?

Or explain how a law REFERENCING standing FEDERAL restrictions will cause those restrictions to increase?

ETA:

Seriously, it's one thing to be against the law, but, come up with real reasons. Claiming that THIS Federal law opens that gates for further restrictions, because it references restrictions in place ALREADY under Federal law is...insane. If the fact those restrictions ALREADY exist hasn't led to rapidly increasing restrictions, why in the world would THIS law that just uses boilerplate language cause them to flood in?

Bubba613
November 20, 2011, 10:43 PM
The entire course of objections to this bill has been based on paranoia. Now we are seeing the tidal wave of unrealism spill out. "This bill will ban assault weapons. Wait 'til the last minute and they sneak something in." It's nonsense. I would almost suspect the Brady Bunch of sneaking people in here to discredit gun rights people.
Can anyone point me to where the BATF has a shall issue stance on concealed carry?
Um. BATF has no stance on carry because that isn't anything they are charged with enforcing.

The Sarge
November 21, 2011, 08:13 AM
So if anybody disagrees with you they are hysterical Brady Bunch Anti Gunners?

Bubba613
November 21, 2011, 08:22 AM
So if anybody disagrees with you they are hysterical Brady Bunch Anti Gunners?
NO, they're simply wrong. If someone had something that was actually based in fact, like a citation or something, there could be reasonable discussion. But so far we have had absurd assertions that Heller means the opposite of what it actually means, that the restrictions contained in the GCA of 1968 actually never existed until this bill appeared, that increasing the ability of people to carry guns is actually a clever plot to restrict that same ability, and that any anti gun legislation introduced (and that happens every session) is actually inspired by this piece of pro gun legislation. None of that passes the laugh test.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 11:39 AM
a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

Any expansion of the list of prohibited persons will automatically expand the list of people who cannot carry state to state. Future expansion of the list of prohibited persons could bump people off the list of who might be able to carry state to state if and when this bill gets passed. It's a built in ex post facto provision which happens to be another unconstitutional aspect of HR 822.

The more you dive into this bill, the worse it gets!

Woody

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 12:12 PM
Future expansion of the list of prohibited persons could bump people off the list of who might be able to carry state to state

Considering that they'd already be prohibited from even possessing firearms, I would think that the least of those person's worries would be that they'd no longer be authorized to carry under the terms of HR822.

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 01:00 PM
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011112114980/us/homeland-security/trojan-horse-gun-bill-hr-822-moves-to-the-senate.html

Rail Driver
November 21, 2011, 01:19 PM
230therapy: While the article is about HR 822, it does the same thing that several people in this thread are doing... Reading things into it that simply aren't there in the text of the bill as passed. Also, it's a "drive by link"... What is your opinion on the matter?

Lone_Sheep_Dog
November 21, 2011, 01:22 PM
Some of you are really paranoid. The NRA totally supports this legislation. If there was anything at all threatening our gun rights, the lawyers for the NRA would find it and the NRA would not support it. This legislation will be great if it becomes law. The NRA says that the anti-gun amendments in this legislation were defeated or removed.

Bubba613
November 21, 2011, 01:28 PM
Any expansion of the list of prohibited persons will automatically expand the list of people who cannot carry state to state. Future expansion of the list of prohibited persons could bump people off the list of who might be able to carry state to state if and when this bill gets passed
Where is there any expansion of prohibited persons? A prohibited person cannot own a gun, much less carry one, much less transport it across state lines. And there is no provision to expand the category of prohibited persons here.

Prince Yamato
November 21, 2011, 03:20 PM
The entire course of objections to this bill has been based on paranoia.

Yep. People are literally inventing things that this bill is capable of. Oh, by the way, did you hear that this bill requires all of us to have a chip implanted in our brain, whereby the ATF can instantly check up on our 4473 status? Also, it will slow down NFA transfer times by 3 months and cause Saiga 12s to be moved to the destructive device list.

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 03:23 PM
this bill requires all of us to have a chip implanted in our brain, whereby the ATF can instantly check up on our 4473 status

Aw, I hate it when that happens!

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 21, 2011, 03:32 PM
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

So you're telling me that the FBI can't find out if I have a permit if they started to investigate me for whatever reason but with this database they suddenly can?

Any expansion of the list of prohibited persons will automatically expand the list of people who cannot carry state to state. Future expansion of the list of prohibited persons could bump people off the list of who might be able to carry state to state if and when this bill gets passed

So people that can't carry or own a gun legally won't be able to carry a gun legally? That add on about counseling isn't in the bill either way and anti gun legislation has been pushed all the time without success.

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 04:50 PM
230therapy: While the article is about HR 822, it does the same thing that several people in this thread are doing... Reading things into it that simply aren't there in the text of the bill as passed. Also, it's a "drive by link"... What is your opinion on the matter?

As soon as the Federal government takes this power, they will start adding conditions based upon the commerce clause. They're currently using the commerce clause (GCA 1968, etc) to restrict the Second Amendment. This obviously violates the original intent of the Constitution.

The actual issue is whether or not states should honor permits from all other states. I believe drivers licenses are accepted by mutual agreement, not Federal mandate. Frankly, I see no reason to use Federal power to mandate state acceptance of anything since the states are still sovereign.

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 05:02 PM
The actual issue is whether or not states should honor permits from all other states. I believe drivers licenses are accepted by mutual agreement, not Federal mandate. Frankly, I see no reason to use Federal power to mandate state acceptance of anything since the states are still sovereign.

So you don't believe the Second Amendment does this already? The State's sovereign powers do not extend to restricting the rights of the people under the Federal Constitution, do they?

Bubba613
November 21, 2011, 05:37 PM
As soon as the Federal government takes this power, they will start adding conditions based upon the commerce clause. They're currently using the commerce clause (GCA 1968, etc) to restrict the Second Amendment. This obviously violates the original intent of the Constitution.
Takes what power? The feds already have this power.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 06:00 PM
And there is no provision to expand the category of prohibited persons here.

I didn't say there was. There will be in other bills, though, like Schumer's S 436. For an example of how that works, the Lautenburg Amendment made gun owners who had misdemeanor abuse records into prohibited persons ex post facto. Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to usurp the Constitution.

Woody

Bubba613
November 21, 2011, 06:15 PM
I didn't say there was. There will be in other bills, though, like Schumer's S 436.
OK, so this bill doesn't expand the category of prohibited persons. What might happen in other bills is irrelevant here. So the bill does not do anything other than expand the ability to carry. That's a bad thing, why?

Rail Driver
November 21, 2011, 06:18 PM
That's what I'm trying to figure out, Bubba... I suppose there are varying levels of paranoia present in everybody's life, and some topics generate more than others. This is one of them.

Duck and cover!

http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/126/324d75d0a4b84fd2a2e6ae2c4e094c13/l.jpg

Prince Yamato
November 21, 2011, 07:06 PM
That makes three of us. I like the tin foil fedora.

Ole Humpback
November 21, 2011, 07:08 PM
Ole Humpback, can you point me to a state that will knowingly issue someone prohibited from possessing a firearm under current standing FEDERAL law a permit?

No state I know of will do that.

Or explain how a law REFERENCING standing FEDERAL restrictions will cause those restrictions to increase?

Now we get into defining the law as it is written. That is a sticky wicket because some parts of the Constitution still aren't defined. Reasonable search with probable cause, a 4th Amendment Right, wasn't legally defined until 1961 in Mapp v Ohio. The SCOTUS ruled that if evidence of a crime, irregardless of the crime committed, was found in an area that wasn't reasonable to expect that kind of evidence to be found in (ie you have stolen a 72" big screen and the police search your medicine cabinet for the TV and find your unmarked bottle of hydrocodone) that the evidence was to be thrown out. However; if during that same search for the TV they find that same bottle of hydrocodone sitting out in the open where anyone can see it, then you're hosed. The 4th Amendment's probable cause portion was written & ratified by the States in the late 1770's to early 1780's and was never legally definied until almost 200yrs later. In fact, if you look at cases involving the definition of the 4th Amendment, its been heavily defined in multiple cases in the 1960's.

If you believe that 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, the President & Vice President, and the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court will get it all right in this day & age as far as writing laws go, I have some prime real estate on the moon to sell you.

Um. BATF has no stance on carry because that isn't anything they are charged with enforcing.

Exactly. Currently the BATF has no "direct" control over the issuance of Concealed Carry permits. Sure, they have a list of people who can't own a firearm or get a permit, but they also aren't the ones writing the rule book for the Concealed Carry permits or laws either. That job is currently being fielded by the states themselves. HR 822 allows the federal gov't to declare reciprocity for a permit issued in one state to be legal in any other state. While that is all fine & well, its the precedent that it sets that isn't all fine and well.

The precedent that HR 822 would set is that it allows the federal gov't DIRECT control over one aspect of Concealed Carry. Now while you all might not mind this, they will seek to use this bill as a jumping off point to get control over another aspect, then another, then another, until finally you have the BATF running the show and writing the rules for how everyone is supposed to get a Concealed Carry permit. Don't believe me, look at how the Patriot Act, a completely unconstitutional piece of legislation, has grown. All the gov't has to do to lock you up and throw away the key now is say you are a terrorist, regardless of probable cause. Not too long ago a 14yr old was taken by the FBI from his bedroom in his parents house by force at 3am and he has never been seen or heard from again because the FBI wiretapped his PC and saw what APPEARED to be terrorist chats taking place from his computer.

Or for a more modern & focused approach, lets look at the 20th century as far as gun control goes: 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Hughes Amendment to the 1968 GCA, 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1994-2004 AWB. One built upon the other as precedent after precedent was set. In order to undo the precedent, a new one has to be set, which we got with Heller in 2008 & McDonald in 2010. We have a long way to go to undo the damage of last century & supporting legislation that would provide the vehicle to cause more damage is just screwy.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 07:08 PM
That's a bad thing, why?

Because of the way it does it.

Woody

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 07:18 PM
Because of the way it does it.

What's the right way for Congress to do it?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 07:55 PM
What's the right way for Congress to do it?

Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA such as taxing the sales of arms, and back it up with appropriate penalties on the several states that do not comply; and criminal charges with jail time and fines for any state or local official - elected, appointed, or hired - who breaks that law. Congress has the power to do this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

Rail Driver
November 21, 2011, 08:09 PM
Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA such as taxing the sales of arms, and back it up with appropriate penalties on the several states that do not comply; and criminal charges with jail time and fines for any state or local official - elected, appointed, or hired - who breaks that law. Congress has the power to do this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

:scrutiny:

Ideally, this is one of the goals.

You're probably referring specifically to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, or §1. Yes, §5 gives congress to enforce this via legislation, however congress (and the supreme court) have shown that the Federal Government won't be pushed to enforce any law they choose not to, such as our immigration laws (google arizona immigration). I don't know about you, but I think we are doing about the best we can with what we've got to work with right now, and these things must be taken one step at a time. Sure the ideal situation would be to have all anti-gun legislation and anything infringing our rights to be repealed, but see if you can even get that bill introduced and you'll see what we're all talking about. We have to do things the same way the anti-gunners do, and take our rights back bit by bit. Sneaking pro-gun amendments into unrelated legislation, flooding the media with pro-gun advertisement, protests, letter writing campaigns, and so on are all good ways to do it, but arguing against pro-gun legislation is NOT the way to do it.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 08:26 PM
...but arguing against pro-gun legislation is NOT the way to do it.

When I see pro-gun-rights legislation, I'll support it. This legislation - HR 822 - is not pro-gun-rights legislation. It's faux pro-gun-rights legislation. It's pro-gun-rights deception. It does not remove one infringement on the RKBA. It's a placation to shut people up. It's an attempt to remove the gun rights issue from the table. It's an ex post facto vehicle to take carry permits away from certain people when the list of prohibited persons gets expanded just like the Lautenberg Amendment accomplished.

HR 822 is not a grass roots endeavor like the call for the removal of infringements is. That alone should make everyone suspicious. As for "the best we can do," the best we can do is make better choices at the ballot box.

Woody

FadingSwordsman
November 21, 2011, 08:29 PM
Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA such as taxing the sales of arms, and back it up with appropriate penalties on the several states that do not comply; and criminal charges with jail time and fines for any state or local official - elected, appointed, or hired - who breaks that law. Congress has the power to do this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody
That actually does quite a bit to open state gun issues to the feds...

For example, if the Firearms Freedom Acts are enforceable currently, then the law you propose opens them up to Federal interference.

N003k
November 21, 2011, 08:32 PM
Okay, here's a few questions.

Does anyone here HONESTLY THINK that HR822 will allow a congress that's anti gun to more easily pass a law that they want passed, as opposed to if it didn't exist?


Would it make an AWB any easier to pass? How?

Would it make another GCA that's even stricter any easier to pass? How?

How does this set a precedent of allowing the feds to regulate the 2nd amendment ANY more than the AWB did? Or the GCA? Or the NFA? They cover what you can own (AWB did, and NFA does.) Where you can carry? (Can't carry on Federal property, except for the parks they ALLOW you to carry on now.)

They might not cover HOW yet, but, does this law REALLY make it any easier for them to cover that? Does anyone REALLY think that a strong anti-gun congress with an anti-gun president couldn't pass a bill outlawing Concealed Carry? Especially if there ends up being an anti-gun supreme court?

IN DETAIL, (Not just say 'precedent' because there's ALREADY precedents for federal controls) how does THIS LAW make ANYTHING any easier for the feds?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 08:34 PM
That actually does quite a bit to open state gun issues to the feds...

For example, if the Firearms Freedom Acts are enforceable currently, then the law you propose opens them up to Federal interference.

That statement needs a little clarification. In what way(s) would the feds be interfering with what?

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 08:35 PM
Okay, here's a few questions.

Does anyone here HONESTLY THINK that HR822 will allow a congress that's anti gun to more easily pass a law that they want passed, as opposed to if it didn't exist?


Would it make an AWB any easier to pass? How?

Would it make another GCA that's even stricter any easier to pass? How?

How does this set a precedent of allowing the feds to regulate the 2nd amendment ANY more than the AWB did? Or the GCA? Or the NFA? They cover what you can own (AWB did, and NFA does.) Where you can carry? (Can't carry on Federal property, except for the parks they ALLOW you to carry on now.)

They might not cover HOW yet, but, does this law REALLY make it any easier for them to cover that? Does anyone REALLY think that a strong anti-gun congress with an anti-gun president couldn't pass a bill outlawing Concealed Carry? Especially if there ends up being an anti-gun supreme court?

IN DETAIL, (Not just say 'precedent' because there's ALREADY precedents for federal controls) how does THIS LAW make ANYTHING any easier for the feds?

It doesn't matter. HR 822 is unconstitutional to begin with.

Woody

N003k
November 21, 2011, 08:38 PM
Agreed there. You're right, and that's a fine argument, I've got NO problem with THAT argument. You're against it because you don't feel any gun law passed is constitutional? Fine.

But you yourself have claimed that it makes it easier to pass anti-gun laws, but the best explanation offered is that it sets a precedent that was set a long, long time ago, so that argument against it is pretty bunk.

Rail Driver
November 21, 2011, 08:39 PM
It does not remove one infringement on the RKBA. It's a placation to shut people up. It's an attempt to remove the gun rights issue from the table.

Here's one example of an infringement removed: My dad lives in Vegas, and I'm out there from time to time. Nevada doesn't recognize the FL carry license. I cannot legally conceal and carry in Nevada now. If HR 822 passes into law, I will be able to legally carry a concealed weapon as per my FL license, in Nevada. Sure sounds like a move in the right direction to me.

It's an ex post facto vehicle to take carry permits away from certain people when the list of prohibited persons gets expanded just like the Lautenberg Amendment accomplished.

The Lautenberg Amendment was an amendment to other legislation, it was not a bill in and of itself, and as such received MUCH less scrutiny than a bill as a whole. HR 822 is not an amendment to another bill, to be quickly considered and yea or nayed, it's the entirety of the proposed law. Amendments to bills tend to receive much less scrutiny than is prudent, in my opinion, and this is how craziness gets passed into law in many cases. It's much easier to get new legislation passed than it is to have something repealed once signed into law, however this is still another issue completely.

HR 822 is not a grass roots endeavor like the call for the removal of infringements is. That alone should make everyone suspicious.

So by your logic, any legislation NOT generated by a grassroots movement is suspicious? You're not helping your case.

Woody[/QUOTE]

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 08:44 PM
Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA

What do the "State's Rights" folks have to say about that approach?

Ole Humpback
November 21, 2011, 09:09 PM
Agreed there. You're right, and that's a fine argument, I've got NO problem with THAT argument. You're against it because you don't feel any gun law passed is constitutional? Fine.

No thats not it. I have studied enough law to be able to know when the law of unintended consequences will come into play. Heller & McDonald were both perfect examples of legal precedents that are completely constitutional in both their ruling & effect. HR 822 is not.

The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is God given, not a privilege granted and revoked at the whim of politicians. When we start treating our rights as privileges, we have no excuse for complaining about how OUR elected gov't has done its utmost to repress & revoke that which was given to each one of us by God. This may be hard to understand, but our gov't did give us our rights, God did. When the US Gov't seeks to repress or remove my God given rights and blind others to their intent, I am compelled to speak up.

But you yourself have claimed that it makes it easier to pass anti-gun laws, but the best explanation offered is that it sets a precedent that was set a long, long time ago, so that argument against it is pretty bunk.

Sorry, but thats the way our legal system works. Legally binding precedents are how the legal system changes, interprets, and writes new law. Once a precedent is set, it is interpreted, tested, and ultimately used as justification or as the foundation for a new law. Each precedent builds upon the previous one and the only backstop to keep legal precedents from spinning out of control is the Constitution itself. Heller & McDonald were both precedents that changed the course of the legal interpretation of the 2A in the US.

What do the "State's Rights" folks have to say about that approach?

Each state has the right to do as it pleases so long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone's God given rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. That plan wouldn't bother me one bit and I'm more in favor of a weaker Federal Gov't and stronger State Gov'ts.

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 09:23 PM
So you don't believe the Second Amendment does this already? The State's sovereign powers do not extend to restricting the rights of the people under the Federal Constitution, do they?

No, it does not in some very goofy ways according to Presser v. Illinois (1886):

"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." *

The gist here is that Illinois wanted to prevent people from forming militias outside the state's control. While the court did say the state cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms, the court essentially ruled that the 2A does not restrict state action. Lots of twisted logic there. It seems like the court wanted to ban militias while maintaining a "national resource" of armed individuals.

Also, don't forget the states are still sovereign. They are countries by themselves (though they don't act like it). The Federal government is supposed to be the external interface to the country (to use a computer programming term).

The real issue is the states' failure to enforce their constitutions (at least those with RKBA) in addition to citizenship games played by state and Federal governments.


* Citation:

Gun Control & Gun Rights edited by Andrew J. McClurg, David B. Kopel, and Brannon P. Denning. 2002. Pages 158-160.


My opinion: I don't agree with Presser v. Illinois. Then again, what I think does not matter. Thousands of FFL holders believe GCA 1968 applies to them, but they haven't read the law and government pretends it does extend into the states.

For those in the know: Congress knows how to write a law using terminology that demonstrates the difference between a law applying to Federal territory and to the states. Congress uses different terms and context is everything in law.

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 09:39 PM
The State's sovereign powers do not extend to restricting the rights of the people under the Federal Constitution, do they?

I'm doing this again, intentionally.

This also touches on the problem of the two classes of citizenship. 14th Amendment (14A) citizens do not have rights. They have privileges outlined under the incorporation doctrine. They are privileges because the government can revoke them simply by following government mandated procedures! Heller is a decision that incorporates a limited RKBA into the 14A. There are several exclusions, including "sensitive places". I posted the source of this earlier in the thread. Look at it and you will see what I mean.

The original class of citizens have rights that are not affected by incorporation. The government has no power except that what it steals (often through the commerce clause). The problem is that the government has figured out it can treat everyone like a 14A citizen (the definitions of which are sourced from Dred Scot) and Americans, who should be original class citizens, will proudly declare themselves a 14A citizen. The government won't argue it.

If you find yourself disbelieving what I am saying, consider this: Would Thomas Jefferson have declared himself a 14A citizen? Would he have accepted the court's "sensitive places" argument, as well as "keeping and bearing" only inside the home? Of course not! What changed between then and now?

ConstitutionCowboy
November 21, 2011, 09:57 PM
What do the "State's Rights" folks have to say about that approach?

States don't have rights, they have powers. It is not within the scope of state powers to infringe the RKBA. It is within the scope of federal power to stop the states if they do infringe the RKBA. It's congruent with the balance of power and principles of checks and balances.

Woody

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 09:59 PM
What do the "State's Rights" folks have to say about that approach?

States don't have rights, they have powers. It is not within the scope of state powers to infringe the RKBA. It is within the scope of federal power to stop the states if they do infringe the RKBA. It's congruent with the balance of power and principles of checks and balances.

Woody

I like how Woody put it.


A moment of clarity:

Presser v. Illinois basically states that the Feds won't intervene if the states trample the rights of state citizens to form militias. It will intervene if the state attempts to disarm its citizens completely.

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 21, 2011, 10:06 PM
Exactly. Currently the BATF has no "direct" control over the issuance of Concealed Carry permits. Sure, they have a list of people who can't own a firearm or get a permit, but they also aren't the ones writing the rule book for the Concealed Carry permits or laws either. That job is currently being fielded by the states themselves. HR 822 allows the federal gov't to declare reciprocity for a permit issued in one state to be legal in any other state. While that is all fine & well, its the precedent that it sets that isn't all fine and well.

BATF doesn't know who can't get a permit with a database as states vary on their permit laws.

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 10:08 PM
States don't have rights, they have powers.

Whatever. You know what is meant by the term. just as you knew that I was asking those who have raised the State's Rights argument against HR822 to comment on your preferred approach.

230therapy
November 21, 2011, 10:15 PM
Whatever. You know what is meant by the term. just as you knew that I was asking those who have raised the State's Rights argument against HR822 to comment on your preferred approach.

No, it's very, very important that the proper terms are used. You're making most basic of mistakes when dealing with law: assuming the dictionary and/or cultural definition applies. They do not. All that matters is the definition in the statute or law.

For example, let's say you're reading a law and it says: "For the purposes of this law, the word "blue" means the color green."

Then:

"Blue pants may only be worn on Tuesdays in location Z. A wearor of blue pants is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000."

What color pants may not be worn on Tuesdays in location Z? What color pants may be worn on Tuesdays in location Z? If a person is wearing blue pants on Monday in location A, is he or she liable for a fine? What is a "wearor"? Is the second sentence related to the first sentence? Is a "wearor" only someone who wears blue pants on Tuesdays in location Z, or is a "wearor" something else?

Yes, they actually do this sort of thing.

Let's say you search around for a few days and finally find the definition of "wearor" in the law.

"Definition: wearor: An employee of the United States Postal Service not within the public area of Location Z."

Okay, so now we have a definition. But what is an "employee of the United States Postal Service"?

You do more searching and figure out the definition of USPS employee:

"For the purposes of this section, an employee of the United States Postal Service is any contractor authorized by the United States Postal Service to handle mail".

Can a contractor authorized by the United States Postal Service who paints walls wear blue (dictionary definition) pants in the public area of location Z be held liable for the fine?

See the evil rabbit hole we're going down? The answer is: No, the painter is not liable for the fine since his pants are blue even if he is in a non-public area of location Z AND he is a contractor for the USPS. He may or may not be authorized to handle mail. I'm not sure Tuesday has anything to do with it. He's definitely not a "wearor".

Bubba613
November 21, 2011, 10:46 PM
Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA such as taxing the sales of arms, and back it up with appropriate penalties on the several states that do not comply; and criminal charges with jail time and fines for any state or local official - elected, appointed, or hired - who breaks that law. Congress has the power to do this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wouldn't that be an infringement on states' rights, which is what you are claiming this bill is?
Doesn't HR822 already cite the 14thA as a basis for what it does?
Take HR822 in one hand, and what you propose in the other, and let's bet which one becomes law first.

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 11:10 PM
You're making most basic of mistakes when dealing with law

Sheesh.

No, I'm not making a mistake. If you don't like the term "State's Rights", that's certainly your prerogative, but the term has a very well-known meaning in US politics.

And in any case, my question concerned those who had cited "State's Rights" as the basis for their objection to HR822. If you don't like the term, please take it up with the folks who invoked it, not with me.

Birch Knoll
November 21, 2011, 11:12 PM
Wouldn't that be an infringement on states' rights, which is what you are claiming this bill is?

I don't believe ConstitutionCowboy ever advanced the State's Rights argument; his argument is (partly) that HR822 lends legitimacy to unconstitutional state laws restricting concealed carry.

cbrgator
November 22, 2011, 01:30 AM
Without arguing the politics of this bill for or against...

Can anyone speak to the likelihood of it actually passing the Senate? Is there a likelihood of passage or failure?

Bubba613
November 22, 2011, 04:59 AM
I don't believe ConstitutionCowboy ever advanced the State's Rights argument; his argument is (partly) that HR822 lends legitimacy to unconstitutional state laws restricting concealed carry.
So the solution is to have unconstitutional federal coercion of states? This is better how?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267370/are-states-protected-federal-coercion-or-not-mario-loyola

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 11:17 AM
Bubba,

A blanket statement about the efficacy of "federal coercion" over the several states cannot be made. This "federal coercion" as you call it must be taken case by case because there are specific instances where Congress can create law to enforce certain things throughout the Constitution. In the other direction, the Congress cannot go beyond those powers, and if Congress does, Congress' usurpations can be challenged and shot down in the Court, and the several states have employed nullification as well.

That said, I must applaud your coming to the right inference by questioning the efficacy of unconstitutional law instituted by Congress forcing the several states to go beyond their own unconstitutional law and accept permits issued by other states via their unconstitutional law.

As I've said, "Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to usurp the Constitution."

Woody

Bubba613
November 22, 2011, 01:31 PM
So IOW it's OK for Congress to coerce the states when it fits your notion of proper coercion, but not OK when it doesn't?
Got it.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 02:59 PM
So IOW it's OK for Congress to coerce the states when it fits your notion of proper coercion, but not OK when it doesn't?
Got it.

Not really. I rely on the Constitution for guidance in these matters.

Woody

Prince Yamato
November 22, 2011, 02:59 PM
When I see pro-gun-rights legislation, I'll support it. This legislation - HR 822 - is not pro-gun-rights legislation.

Really? Because if this passes, I'll be able to CCW my Glock 26 in Central Park. I consider that a win. I'll be able to carry when I go to see my family in upstate NY, that's a win. If I take a job in CT, I don't have to worry about having a heart attack if I accidentally cross over the NY or MA border because some man-made line makes me an instant felon. That's also a win.

This may not be the perfect legislation, but it works.

The Sarge
November 22, 2011, 03:43 PM
Not if those states do not allow carry in certain ways/shape/location.

batjka
November 22, 2011, 04:11 PM
This legislation is a huge victory for Gun Rights. And it doesn't set any "precedent". Only in Court are precedents relevant. Any piece of legislation can be done at any moment without having to rely on earlier laws. That's just the way it is.

In the mean time, freedom will be extended to almost all corners of the country and people will be able to exercise their rights without fear of prosecution.

States have been restricting freedoms way more than feds ever did. Jim Crow, anyone? Was fed govt wrong in forcing desegregation down states' throat? But, but, what? If freedoms are infringed upon by the states, feds have an obligation to step in and correct them.

If HR822 becomes law, it will force commie states to accept 2nd Amendment for all Americans. And eventually it will trickle down to their own citizens. And, of course, we will win the Supreme Court cases as well and we'll be finally free.

Way to go, HR822!!!

brickeyee
November 22, 2011, 04:24 PM
This legislation is a huge victory for Gun Rights.

Right up until a different political group in congress uses the precedent to further expand the Federal governments powers beyond the enumerated ones against "Gun Rights" or some other as obnoxious thing.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 04:45 PM
Really? Because if this passes, I'll be able to CCW my Glock 26 in Central Park. I consider that a win. I'll be able to carry when I go to see my family in upstate NY, that's a win. If I take a job in CT, I don't have to worry about having a heart attack if I accidentally cross over the NY or MA border because some man-made line makes me an instant felon. That's also a win.

It's not really a win. Look at it truthfully. Follow me through this scenario:

Let's say you are a normal, law abiding citizen but you and everyone else has been thrown in prison only because other citizens have been bad and your government doesn't want to sort you out to lock up only the bad people. You have the opportunity in this prison to wear green overalls instead of brown if you pass a background check, and can visit other prisons if the other prisons accept the disciplinary standards in your prison.

So, some prisons make reciprocity agreements to allow prisoners in green overalls to visit. Other prisons with different disciplinary standards don't allow visitors from other prisons.

Along comes the Pardon and Visitation Agency and passes a law forcing all prisons to accept visitors regardless of disciplinary standards as long as their home prisons have issued green overalls to those who wish to visit and have passed the background check. Does that make you a free man or are you still a prisoner but in a larger cage?

Woody

splithoof
November 22, 2011, 04:48 PM
If HR822 becomes law, I am not convinced that most California LE agencies will recognize it, at least not until they are forced to do so by a court challenge. Look at all the problems that had to be worked out with HR218, giving LE and retired LE carry ability in many other areas. If it even passes, that's when things will really start to get interesting.

Birch Knoll
November 22, 2011, 04:53 PM
Does that make you a free man or are you still a prisoner but in a larger cage?

I'm still a prisoner. But I'm more free than I was before.

Bubba613
November 22, 2011, 05:02 PM
Does that make you a free man or are you still a prisoner but in a larger cage?
If I don't have a warden or guard standing over my shoulder telling me what to do, I'm free. I haven't seen anyone standing over my shoulder, except Mrs Bubba maybe.

usmarine0352_2005
November 22, 2011, 06:01 PM
.


Any status updates on this yet?

.

Ole Humpback
November 22, 2011, 06:35 PM
And it doesn't set any "precedent".

Legislation is law. The fact that this is a new law would make it in and of itself a precedent, the first time there has ever been a Federally mandated reciprocity law.

The legislative branch writes the laws (Congress), the judicial branch defines both the meaning & application as well as approves the law (SCOTUS), and the executive branch enforces the law.

Neverwinter
November 22, 2011, 07:01 PM
Legislation is law. The fact that this is a new law would make it in and of itself a precedent, the first time there has ever been a Federally mandated reciprocity law.

The legislative branch writes the laws (Congress), the judicial branch defines both the meaning & application as well as approves the law (SCOTUS), and the executive branch enforces the law.

You're mixing up the general meaning of precedent with the legal concept. For courts, adherence to precedents(ie. Previous decisions) is important in decisions. Precedent holds no such importance to legislatures. The passage of HR 822 doesn't constrain future bills or endorse the passage of future related laws

Sent using Tapatalk

danez71
November 22, 2011, 08:14 PM
That said, I must applaud your coming to the right inference by questioning the efficacy of unconstitutional law instituted by Congress forcing the several states to go beyond their own unconstitutional law and accept permits issued by other states via their unconstitutional law.


Woody, what constitutional law would HR822 break?

Let's say you are a normal, law abiding citizen but you and everyone else has been thrown in prison only because other citizens have been bad and your government doesn't want to sort you out to lock up only the bad people. You have the opportunity in this prison to wear green overalls instead of brown if you pass a background check, and can visit other prisons if the other prisons accept the disciplinary standards in your prison.

So, some prisons make reciprocity agreements to allow prisoners in green overalls to visit. Other prisons with different disciplinary standards don't allow visitors from other prisons.

Along comes the Pardon and Visitation Agency and passes a law forcing all prisons to accept visitors regardless of disciplinary standards as long as their home prisons have issued green overalls to those who wish to visit and have passed the background check. Does that make you a free man or are you still a prisoner but in a larger cage?


Woody... seriously....?

If I was on the fence in regards to gun control in general, your posts would be pushing away from the pro 2A group.

These extremely exaggerated analogies arent helping you or our cause IMO.

I've gone from 'Woody's really smart... not sure I 100% agree... but probably someone Id like to have 'beer-gate' with and toss ideas back and forth with' to 'I'm not sure I want to be around Woody with a beer let alone a gun'.

Its the extremist attitudes, whether pro or con, that is drives the masses away.

I know you're better than that.

We need the masses on our side. We need to conduct ourselves to accomplish this.


(some of this was said with tongue in cheek... woody seems like a nice guy from what I can tell)

Prince Yamato
November 22, 2011, 08:15 PM
Does that make you a free man or are you still a prisoner but in a larger cage?



I'll take the blue pill and my Glock 26 and ccw in Central Park. You can stay home and argue literalist details until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that we have to work within our current system of laws.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 10:18 PM
Woody, what constitutional law would HR822 break?

Give me an example of what you would consider a constitutional law in this instance. As far as I know, the only "constitutional" law HR 822 would break would be something in the Constitution itself, like the Second Amendment; and if the Second Amendment didn't exist, it would violate the Tenth Amendment.

Woody... seriously....?

If I was on the fence in regards to gun control in general, your posts would be pushing away from the pro 2A group.

These extremely exaggerated analogies arent helping you or our cause IMO.

I've gone from 'Woody's really smart... not sure I 100% agree... but probably someone Id like to have 'beer-gate' with and toss ideas back and forth with' to 'I'm not sure I want to be around Woody with a beer let alone a gun'.

Its the extremist attitudes, whether pro or con, that is drives the masses away.

I know you're better than that.

We need the masses on our side. We need to conduct ourselves to accomplish this.


(some of this was said with tongue in cheek... woody seems like a nice guy from what I can tell)

Yeah, I'm a nice guy. And, I'm deadly serious with that 'extremely exaggerated' analogy. It's meant to place what HR 822 would accomplish in a different light so as to more vividly demonstrate the inefficacy of HR 822. You'll end up in a bigger cell - or cage - with more powerful and less friendly gate keepers.

Let's not forget that HR 822 is unconstitutional - as well as dangerous!

Woody

Rail Driver
November 22, 2011, 10:31 PM
Give me an example of what you would consider a constitutional law in this instance. As far as I know, the only "constitutional" law HR 822 would break would be something in the Constitution itself, like the Second Amendment; and if the Second Amendment didn't exist, it would violate the Tenth Amendment.



Yeah, I'm a nice guy. And, I'm deadly serious with that 'extremely exaggerated' analogy. It's meant to place what HR 822 would accomplish in a different light so as to more vividly demonstrate the inefficacy of HR 822. You'll end up in a bigger cell - or cage - with more powerful and less friendly gate keepers.

Let's not forget that HR 822 is unconstitutional - as well as dangerous!

Woody

Look at it this way, using your own analogy... We're already in a cage dude... Anything that "loosens the cuffs" so to speak, is a step in the right direction, even if we have to use less than savory methods to get there. It would take nothing short of revolution to see what you're describing (strict constitutionalist legislation reform on the scale required to repeal the NFA and GCA, wipe out the commerce clause precedents, etc), and there are too many sheep in this once strong nation for that to happen.

I'm solidly FOR HR 822 becoming law. It's a small step with its own risks, but it's a step in the right direction all the same.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 10:36 PM
It doesn't change the fact that we have to work within our current system of laws.

That "current system of laws" includes the Constitution, doesn't it?

HR 822 is to the Constitution as the kid is to his parents when he tells his parents he is going to the library but heads for the local hangout instead. HR 822 says it's going to "... protect against infringement... of ... rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," but instead it incorporates unconstitutional state laws, giving them false credence, and involving the Federal Government in an arena that those states requiring permits to conceal carry shouldn't even be involved in.

Woody

beatledog7
November 22, 2011, 10:46 PM
Little cage, run by the states you live in and to which you travel

or

Great big cage, seemingly less restrictive, but run by the over-zealous feds.

If I have to vote for one or the other, I'll vote for leaving it with the states. When it comes to RKBA, I don't trust the VA lawmakers completely, but I don't trust the Feds at all.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 22, 2011, 10:52 PM
...and there are too many sheep in this once strong nation for that to happen.

Then call me a ram. Someone has to stand up to the errant sheepdogs and shepherds. Don't expect me to follow the rest of the flock just because it'll be difficult to take the straight and narrow path to the greener pastures. Sticking with the flock following the shepherd while prodded along by the sheepdog will only get you fleeced from time to time - then you end up on the dinner table long before you make it to the greener pasture.

It looks to me like you understand what's right and what's wrong but you seem to be willing to settle for what only appears to be a crumb. It's not even a crumb, though. It's only a picture of a crumb. Wait until the layers of paint begin to peel and the underlying horror shows through...

Woody

danez71
November 22, 2011, 10:55 PM
Give me an example of what you would consider a constitutional law in this instance.

No no no.... you made the claim; not I. Am asking what constitutionl law do you say HR822 break.

And, I'm deadly serious with that 'extremely exaggerated' analogy.

Thats part of what I'm affraid of.

It's meant to place what HR 822 would accomplish in a different light so as to more vividly demonstrate the inefficacy of HR 822.

Mission = Fail. The "vivid" picture you paint comes across a little delusional.

The best way I could say it is that the way you're coming across is like the difference between a Muslim and a Muslim extremist.

Most people dont have a problem with Muslims.... but they fear Muslim Extremists.

(dont turn this into a religious discussion, or a Muslim discussion. I could have said Catholic extremist but they dont get the press time.)

Your extremist attitude will drive people away and will have the opposite effect than what you want. History has shown this time and time again.


You'll end up in a bigger cell - or cage - with more powerful and less friendly gate keepers.


Your supporting evidence is... what? Please spare the repetitive speculation. Show me real examples.

Let's not forget that HR 822 is unconstitutional - as well as dangerous!



You have made that claim numerous times.

I have ask 2 times on this threads page and probably two more times earlier in this thread.

You seem very familiar with the constitution but you havent answered that question. When you cant support your claims, you undermine yourself.


What constitutional law would HR822 break?

danez71
November 22, 2011, 11:06 PM
..............but instead it incorporates unconstitutional state laws..........


Woody... it does no such thing.

You are dragging down us, and this site, as a whole by intentionally and repetitivly making false claims.

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 22, 2011, 11:14 PM
Give me an example of what you would consider a constitutional law in this instance. As far as I know, the only "constitutional" law HR 822 would break would be something in the Constitution itself, like the Second Amendment; and if the Second Amendment didn't exist, it would violate the Tenth Amendment.

You're the one claiming that it's unconstitutional, why is it unconstitutional?

Rail Driver
November 23, 2011, 01:04 AM
The thing you fail to realize or simply refuse to accept, Woody, is that ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, the United States Supreme Court gets to decide what is and isn't constitutional, not you and I. The Justices of the Supreme court aren't elected officials, they're appointed by the sitting administration (chosen by the sitting CinC, confirmed/approved by senate). While there is a "conservative" majority, the supreme court is relatively balanced in their politics. Finally, the supreme court itself decides what cases they'll hear and what cases they won't. Now I don't know what ideas you have (if any) to lead or merely incite a great enough portion of the population to speak out in favor of a move to a constitutionalist regime, I can only do what I do now in sharing my ideas and beliefs with you people and others I discuss these issues with, I don't even know if a strict constitutionalist regime would be right for our country. Personally I can see drawbacks to that especially in some of the amendments in existence. This isn't just about RKBA and the 2nd Amendment here. The RKBA movement touches on many of the restrictions our government places on us as citizens due to the way restricting legislation has been passed (most notably anything citing the Interstate Commerce Clause). The entire gun control movement centers not on crimes and penalties, restrictions and legalities, but on money. The agency created to regulate firearms was originally a part of the treasury department as I'm sure you're aware. Because of this we find ourselves in a precarious position... Our bloated government has driven our nation into an incomprehensible amount of debt to the largest communist nation on the planet, less than 2% of the population in our nation controls 90% or more of the "wealth" in our nation (and, not unexpectedly, this trend is world-wide). A large portion of that 2% in control of our country's finances are directly or indirectly involved in all aspects of the government of our country.

Simply put, the people in power have too much and won't give it up without putting up a major fight.

When I joined the Army I took an oath to defend my nation from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic, and I'll stand by that oath until death. It saddens me a great deal to say this, but in standing by my oath I feel a great sense of loneliness. I don't want to "settle for a crumb, or a picture of a crumb" as you call it, but when you're one logical voice in a thousand that simply don't care anymore (if they ever did... career politicians have been a problem since this country was founded, as is evidenced by the history of the constitution itself), it becomes an overwhelming prospect. There is no unifying plan or purpose to the RKBA movement, or what could be called the American Freedom movement (in reference to fighting for all our infringed rights rather than simply the RKBA alone), and the NRA and every other anti-infringement organization in the country are unable or unwilling to truly lead such drastic reform.

I suppose what I'm saying is that we're limited to working within the current law system (constitutional or not is NOT the issue here... we're stuck with what we have right now), we don't have the "intestinal fortitude" to stand up as a people and reclaim our nation. I'm not saying that individuals here and there don't have it, but that without unity, it simply won't happen, and even if we get a good start the media will rip it to shreds by picking out the least desirable examples of the movement and draw as much attention to the worst aspects of the movement, thus keeping the general population confused and indecisive.

Now I'm starting to get into some tinfoil hattery so I'm going to stop here, but I think you see where I'm going Woody. I might be willing to work within the system, but only because for the time being there's no other way. When it's required, I'll be standing proudly to defend my nation.

*Edit to add: These are my own opinions based on my own perception of the way things are. This post in no way reflects the ideas, beliefs or stance of TheHighRoad.org, THR affiliates, Advertisers, members or anyone else. I attempted to keep my post as non-political as possible concerning the subject matter.

brickeyee
November 23, 2011, 11:35 AM
The passage of HR 822 doesn't constrain future bills or endorse the passage of future related laws

No, but it demonstrates a path that can be used to pass other laws.

It is not about constraining or endorsing future bills, but about establishing that there is (once again) no limit on the power of congress.

We used to have actual Congress Critters that at least payed SOME attention to the enumerated powers the Federal government is granted.

Bird was well known for carrying a pocket copy of the Constitution all the time, and actually objecting to bills that he thought did not comply.

Every time a law is passed that exceeds the enumerated powers it further opens the door for the next one.

Bubba613
November 23, 2011, 12:17 PM
The bill clearly states on what basis it is passed.
And I don't know who "Bird" is.

chubcobear
November 23, 2011, 12:24 PM
will kill it.

brickeyee
November 23, 2011, 01:27 PM
The bill clearly states on what basis it is passed.

It can say what it wants, that does not establish anything beyond what the author decided to put down.

Courts can review it, but it is a long expensive process to get it up to the Supreme Court.

And I don't know who "Bird" is.

Sorry, I spelled it wrong, but you have never heard of Robert Byrd?

Better hit some newspapers.

Bubba613
November 23, 2011, 02:02 PM
You're right. It would need to be challenged in the courts as to its constitutionality. But I don't see any issue with it and I think anyone challenging it will have a tough time.
People here love to claim this or that is "unconstitutional". In this context "unconstitutional" means "it doesnt accord with what I think the Constitution ought to say. That and a quarter won't get you on the bus.
You mean Robert "Sheets" Byrd of WV. Yeah, so what?

Birch Knoll
November 23, 2011, 02:14 PM
Bird was well known for carrying a pocket copy of the Constitution all the time, and actually objecting to bills that he thought did not comply.

But, as Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, he was perfectly OK with denying blacks their constitutional rights.

Some constitutional hero he was.

Bubba613
November 23, 2011, 02:44 PM
Byrd also played fast and loose to his own advantage (not like he was the first in history to do so). Anyway, he's hardly a model legislator.

Birch Knoll
November 23, 2011, 02:56 PM
The Maryland Police Training Commission offers an online gun safety course that only takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete, and includes handgun safety. It even prints you out a nice nifty certificate of completion at the end.
Very interesting! I wonder if Maine would actually accept that training? Since the documentation of training is essentially a self-certified document, I'd be a little skeptical. I will contact the Maine State Police lieutenant responsible for weapons licenses and see what he has to say.


As promised, I contacted the Maine State Police to ask if the Maryland online course would satisfy Maine's CCW training requirement. The detective I spoke with contacted his colleagues in Maryland and determined that the Maryland course, which is intended solely for the purchase of firearms in Maryland, does not meet the criteria for safety training under Maine's law, and would not be accepted as satisfactory proof of training.

So, no; you cannot get a Maine CCW with a 10- or 20-minute online training course.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 23, 2011, 04:49 PM
Do any of you supporters of this bill realize it has no provisions in it to enforce it, to fund enforcement, or to restrict the Courts from prosecuting anyone arrested who might be in full compliance of this bill but in violation of a law it supersedes?

In such a case, you might have good standing with an affirmative defense, but what will it cost you? Do you believe Bloomberg or any one of his troop of Mayors Against Guns(paraphrased) would let you simply walk by waving this bill around?

Woody

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!