H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill

[Cavalier Knight]

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

 

[henschman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Gun guys opposing RKBA. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[AirForceShooter]

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]

+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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.....

 

[oneounceload]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

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

LINK

 

[ATBackPackin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.