Nationwide CCW law HR 882

newbuckeye · Mar 16, 2014

I've been hearing about this bill that just passed the House and I'm kinda torn. I think national reciprocity would be a good thing, but what about state sovereignty? If you notice the groups for it is rather short (The NRA and Buckeye firearms) but the list opposed is the normal anti gun groups with one surprise at the end.

Brady Campaign
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
National Association for Gun Rights
League of Women Voters of Connecticut
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
American Bar Association
Police Foundation
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
National Network to End Domestic Violence
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Gun Owners of America

Links....
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr822-112/bill_positions

Thoughts?

rockhopper46038 · Mar 16, 2014

I would prefer Constitutional carry.

RoughshodBronco · Mar 16, 2014

Constitutional carry would be the preferred thing, but realistically I just don't see how to get there from here. As for national reciprocity, sure it sounds great in theory, but I feel that we will rue the day that we ceded the authority to make laws like this to the feds. Anything they can make legal they can subsequently do an about face on and make illegal at a later date. As much of a pain as the current patch work of different state laws can be it is much preferable to handing this power over to the federal government.

hso · Mar 16, 2014

GOA is going to be opposed to any federal involvement having seen the mess the Fed can make of things.

Also, it is important to read the proposed legislation as well as the interpretations of it before making judgements about it.

Devonai · Mar 16, 2014

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut opposes this? Here is a copy of the e-mail I just sent them:

To Whom it may Concern,

It has come to my attention that your organization has come out in opposition of a congressional bill to allow for national reciprocity of a concealed carry license, regardless of the state of issue.

For many women, a concealed carry license is the last line of defense against an abusive boyfriend, spouse, or significant other. It is invaluable, especially in tandem with a restraining order, and should not be limited by state boundaries. Full faith and credit is given to license of all kinds across state borders; why would your organization be opposed to a bill that puts more power and flexibility into the hands of women as to the means to defend themselves?

Staff Sergeant David Kantrowitz
103d Airlift Wing, CT Air National Guard

Shovelhead · Mar 17, 2014

What the Feds giveth, the Feds can take away with a stroke of a pen.
Constitutional Carry is the way to go, not a law.
The current resident of the Oval Office has already shown that proper procedures and Congressional oversight are something to be brushed aside on a whim.

heycods · Mar 17, 2014

Looks like National Concealed handgun regristry to me. Dont care for the idea.

HexHead · Mar 17, 2014

National reciprocity doesn't necessarily have to mean federal oversight. It should be a full faith and credit issue just like all states recognizing each other's drivers and heterosexual marriage licenses.

oneounceload · Mar 17, 2014

GOA is going to be opposed to any federal involvement having seen the mess the Fed can make of things.

I agree wholeheartedly. Then they could diminish or restrict things even more depending on which way the winds blows at any moment.

newbuckeye · Mar 17, 2014

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one this make queasy. I've found the more the feds try to "simplify" something, the more complex it ends up. It's in their nature and they can't help it.

Midwest · Mar 17, 2014

My concern about a Nationwide CCW law is that they would design the law after heavy input from NJ, NY, MD and other anti-gun states.

Then we will get to carry in our car, if it is unloaded and only on every other Monday after a full moon on alternating odd and even days.

Of course after we provide four references with their social security numbers, credit check, employer references, 100 hours of training, $300 fee, fingerprints, photos, dna sample, blood sample, physician release, lie detector test, psychological test, stress test.

Absolutely NO federal involvement

.

Spats McGee · Mar 17, 2014

Can anyone confirm that bill or resolution number? When I click the link, I get the list of supporters, but I can't seem to match it up with a bill or resolution.

Rio Laxas · Mar 17, 2014

I think the referenced bill is from 2011. I could be wrong, but that's what it looked like when I did a bit of searching. These threads are from 2011 and talk about it:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=474201

http://arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=130577

The current HR 882 seems to be about tax accountability.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.882:

JRH6856 · Mar 17, 2014

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." -- unknown

DeadMoneyDrew · Mar 17, 2014

Devonai said:
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut opposes this? Here is a copy of the e-mail I just sent them:

Yep. Awhile ago I had some involvement with this group regarding another matter. While researching them I was surprised to discover their anti-gun position, given that their stated reason for being is an equal voice for all.

http://www.lwv.org/content/about-league

The League of Women Voters is a citizens’ organization that has fought since 1920 to improve our government and engage all citizens in the decisions that impact their lives. We operate at national, state and local levels through more than 800 state and local Leagues, in all 50 states as well in DC, the Virgin Islands and Hong Kong.

Formed from the movement that secured the right to vote for women, the centerpiece of the League’s efforts remain to expand participation and give a voice to all Americans. We do this at all three levels of government, engaging in both broad educational efforts as well as advocacy. Our issues are grounded in our respected history of making democracy work for all citizens.

http://www.lwv.org/content/gun-control

Statement of Position on Gun Control, as Adopted by 1990 Convention and amended by the 1994 and 1998 Conventions:

The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these weapons by private citizens. The League supports regulating firearms for consumer safety.

The League supports licensing procedures for gun ownership by private citizens to include a waiting period for background checks, personal identity verification, gun safety education and annual license renewal. The license fee should be adequate to bear the cost of education and verification.

The League supports a ban on “Saturday night specials,” enforcement of strict penalties for the improper possession of and crimes committed with handguns and assault weapons, and allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers.

Seems kinda contradictory, doesn't it?

newbuckeye · Mar 17, 2014

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr822-112/show

beatledog7 · Mar 17, 2014

States do not have to recognize each other's driver and marriage licenses; but not doing so would be economically stupid, and their legislatures know it.

MedWheeler · Mar 18, 2014

Hexhead writes:

It should be a full faith and credit issue just like all states recognizing each other's drivers and heterosexual marriage licenses.

Should be, yes; I agree.

But, there has never been as powerful an agenda to restrict the driving privileges or right-to-marry of citizens as the one that exists to disarm them.

Devonai · Mar 18, 2014

I did receive a reply:

Dear Sgt. Kantrowitz:

Thank you for your query, which I am about to forward to one of our people who’s more heavily involved in gun-law matters than I am.

Speaking personally and not as a League member, I can only say that if Connecticut has determined that we don’t want most people to have the right to carry concealed weapons within the state – as I believe we have – then the federal government has no right to force us to bow to the contrary wishes of other states. If I am wrong about the impact of the full faith and credit provision of the US Constitution on this question, not doubt someone will explain that to me. I am also a little bothered by your suggestion that carrying a concealed weapon is an effective option for most women who are the victims of domestic abuse. In some cases you may be right, but I doubt that many women who have become the victims of abuse could actually bring themselves to shoot their abuser, even in situations where the law would permit it; and it’s my belief that women are far more likely to be the victims of concealed gun users than to be users. If that’s so, as I believe it is, our being primarily a women’s organization militates in favor of our working to remove as many guns as possible from our homes and streets. Let the abused women call 911, and let a well-armed and well-trained police force respond.

Jean Rabinow
Administrator, LWVCT

In my reply, I simply pointed out that it's relatively easy to get a permit in CT, that there are approximately 210,000 active pistol permits, and that I didn't think that was an indication that "we don't want most people to have permits." Since I chose to represent myself in my military capacity, my reply was short and polite and I decided not to get into the weeds with this lady.

Ryanxia · Mar 18, 2014

I say keep the Feds out of it as much as we can even if at the time it might help us out.

Also, the only way it could happen is if they added requirements to some states (which we don't want) or they removed requirements from others, which, as much as that should happen, is further infringing on State's Rights. Just my opinion.

Storm · Mar 18, 2014

I'd rather not have all of the eggs in one basket...held by Uncle Sam.

Godsgunman · Mar 18, 2014

I'm probably gonna fall into the "against it" crowd. In no way, shape, or form do I want Feds having their hands on it. Like heycods was saying, sounds like a nice way for the Feds to easily know who's a permit holder and most likely having a gun registry along with it. I'll stick with how it is now unless it's a Constitutional Carry deal with no need of permits.

Catalina · Apr 27, 2014

Let the abused women call 911, and let a well-armed and well-trained police force respond

What a simpleton.

Midwest · Apr 27, 2014

Let the abused women call 911, and let a well-armed and well-trained police force respond

From 2005.......
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1&

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

.

MarkDido · Apr 27, 2014

Let the abused women call 911, and let a well-armed and well-trained police force respond

In time to notify the next of kin.

Nationwide CCW law HR 882

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads