H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill

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.

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.

The moment the Supremes incorporated the 2A via the 14thA it ceased being a states rights issue

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Neverwinter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Waywatcher said:

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

Click to expand...

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

........forcing the several states to remove all permit or license requirements to keep and bear arms, is.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

danez71 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

.... HR 822 requires that you have a permit issued by a state to be able to carry state to state.

Click to expand...

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.

danez71 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

danez71 said:

It in no way supports "unconstitutional state law".

Click to expand...

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.

danez71 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Too Mind Numbing!

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.

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.

NRA-ILA is wrong on this one, IMHO. They're not thinking about the long-term consequences, again, IMHO.

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

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

Click to expand...

Proof?

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,......

Click to expand...

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.

Bubba613 said:

Proof?

Click to expand...

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

danez71 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Bubba613 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

(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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Bubba613 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Bubba613 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Bubba613 said:

He didnt say they were constitutional because that wasn't the issue at hand.

Click to expand...

Yup. I sad that....

Bubba613 said:

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

Click to expand...

...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