H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill

[Birch Knoll]

Yes, I'm aware that there are no penalties in the law. It would certainly be amusing if there were, like the Florida preemption law.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that a person covered by HR822 who is wrongfully prosecuted for CCW might have some recourse under civil rights law for a color of law abuse.

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

You may be in a cage. I live in Vermont, however. What I really do not want is for the federal government to get involved in concealed carry permits. Federal law is currently tacit on the subject. HR822 gets them involved, and sets a precedent for further involvement. This can only be bad news for Vermonters, who have zealously guarded our right to armed self defense longer than the USA has existed.

I'm sorry your forbears traded away your rights. Don't gamble with mine in an incrementalist effort to get them back.

 

[danez71]

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

None of this has anything to do your arguments against it and IF HR 822 was an unconstitutional law as you have claimed numerous times throughout this thread, the above is trivial in comparision to violating the constitution.


So... lets get this straight... you havent shown which part of the constitution HR 822 violates after being asked several times and now your resorting to trivial reasons, in comparison, as the basis for your arguement.

Its getting more hollow with every post.

 

[Murphy4570]

None of this has anything to do your arguments against it and IF HR 822 was an unconstitutional law as you have claimed numerous times throughout this thread, the above is trivial in comparision to violating the constitution.


So... lets get this straight... you havent shown which part of the constitution HR 822 violates after being asked several times and now your resorting to trivial reasons, in comparison, as the basis for your arguement.

Its getting more hollow with every post.

I can name the 9th and 10th Amendments, just off the top of my head. I am against this legislation, as it increases the power of centralized government, beyond its intended scope.

 

[Bubba613]

I can name the 9th and 10th Amendments, just off the top of my head. I am against this legislation, as it increases the power of centralized government, beyond its intended scope.

I can name the First and Twenty Third. That doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Not everything someone doesn't like is unconstitutional.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

None of this has anything to do your arguments against it and IF HR 822 was an unconstitutional law as you have claimed numerous times throughout this thread, the above is trivial in comparision to violating the constitution.

What, pray tell, is wrong with pointing out ALL the flaws in this(or any) bill? As I find them, I'll continue to expose them. Trivializing a flaw just because you can't refute it doesn't make it go away or become insignificant.

So... lets get this straight... you havent shown which part of the constitution HR 822 violates after being asked several times and now your resorting to trivial reasons, in comparison, as the basis for your arguement.

Oh, I've pointed out what part of the Constitution this bill violates. The Second Amendment directly, and it claims to be using Congress' power in the Fourteenth Amendment but is not even coming close to exercising that power. It is only feigning to use that power. To claim HR 822 is using power in the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to a deceptively adapted version of a synesis.

I am beginning to sense there is a lot of eristical activity in this thread. It's a shame, too.

WELL, folks! That's it for me for tonight!

[size=+1]Y'ALL HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING, AND FORGET NOT FROM WHERE ALL BLESSINGS FLOW![/size]

Woody

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

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.

Here in NH, there is no training to get a CCW and we aren't shooting ourselves while carrying.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Nor are they in Vermont, where you don't even need to get a permit, and never have. That's not the point. The point is that the information offered earlier, that Maine would issue a CCW on the strength of the MD online training, is apparently incorrect.

 

[cbrgator]

Does this bill even have a chance of passing the Senate? Do people expect this to pass or fail?

 

[chubcobear]

Fail

 

[danez71]

Does this bill even have a chance of passing the Senate? Do people expect this to pass or fail?

Doesnt have much chance at all IMO.

And in fairness Woody has brought up some good points.

IMO, HR822, like most things, has pros and cons and must be weighed for the good and potentially bad.

 

[The Sarge]

I hate to see us gun folks turn on each other. Anti's love it I bet.
Good points from both sides.
Bottom line is freedom requires a constant watch and due diligence.
Those that wish to take away our freedom are hard at work.
Lets discuss and then re-energize ourselves, as one team, against anybody or anything wishing to destroy our Constitutional rights.

I am against the bill as I have stated previously. I am for freedom to discuss amongst ourselves. Thankfully we have this forum to do so.

 

[brickeyee]

Doesnt have much chance at all IMO.

Snowball, meet hell.

I can name the First and Twenty Third. That doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Not everything someone doesn't like is unconstitutional.

what enumerated power allows the d\federal government to force states to recognize licenses or permits issued by other states?

My PE licenses are only valid in the states that issued them.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

You may be in a cage. I live in Vermont, however. What I really do not want is for the federal government to get involved in concealed carry permits. Federal law is currently tacit on the subject. HR822 gets them involved, and sets a precedent for further involvement. This can only be bad news for Vermonters, who have zealously guarded our right to armed self defense longer than the USA has existed.

I'm sorry your forbears traded away your rights. Don't gamble with mine in an incrementalist effort to get them back.

How exactly would that effect you? You won't need a permit to carry in your state. Those that get permits will than be able to use them to carry out of state. If the government wanted to find out if you had a permit, they could. It's not like it's some big mystery to them who has permits and who doesn't.

 

[Bubba613]

what enumerated power allows the d\federal government to force states to recognize licenses or permits issued by other states?

Article VI Clause 2, among others.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

what enumerated power allows the d\federal government to force states to recognize licenses or permits issued by other states?

Article VI Clause 2, among others.

Article VI, Clause 2, only makes the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution the supreme law of the land. There are no enumerated powers in Article VI, Clause 2.

Woody

 

[Murphy4570]

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That clause holds no water towards laws which are in direct contradiction with the clauses which limit government power.

I can name the First and Twenty Third. That doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Not everything someone doesn't like is unconstitutional.

True, but if a proposed bill or law is in direct violation of the constitution, that is unconstitutional, and thus null and void. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone "likes" or "dislikes" such legislation or law(s). We are talking about what is legal, not what someone "feels" about the law, or personal opinion.

 

[Bubba613]

You can sit there and say it is unconstitutional all day long. That doesn't make it so. Until some court rules, the law is constitutional.

 

[FadingSwordsman]

It's likely that this law would be protected by the all-encompassing commerce clause. Article IV, Section 1 (Full faith and credit) is what justifies driver license reciprocity, as well as marriage certificate, adoption certificate, and <insert just about any non-medical, non-legal related license> reciprocity. I would assume it would be used in a constitutional court as justification.

If the law is used in a way that prevents carry or possession of weapons, it should be overturned. The possible danger I would see, is either states drop their CFL programs in protest, or a number of reps move to make only licenses from a state in which you are a resident valid for this law. (If you live in a may-butnotreally-issue state you can't go to another state for a license, and are perma-disarmed)

Overall, though, I think this is a good thing. The residents of CA, HI, NY, NJ, RI etc. can go get UT or any other non-resident licensing state and carry concealed (Or open, depending on their state laws) in their own state. For self defense. (NJ rejects applicants who claim they're going to carry for SD) That, right there, is a pretty big win as far as the 2A is concerned.

 

[gc70]

The residents of CA, HI, NY, NJ, RI etc. can go get UT or any other non-resident licensing state and carry concealed (Or open, depending on their state laws) in their own state.

I think the bill provides differently:

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

‘(a) ... a person ... may carry ... in any State, other than the State of residence of the person ...

 

[LemmyCaution]

How exactly would that effect you? You won't need a permit to carry in your state. Those that get permits will than be able to use them to carry out of state. If the government wanted to find out if you had a permit, they could. It's not like it's some big mystery to them who has permits and who doesn't.

As I have said, ad nauseam, this particular law does not affect me. What this law does is establish a precedent for the federal government to regulate concealed carry permits, which they do not now do.

Once the precedent has been set, one can reasonably expect that the federal government will enact further laws to regulate concealed carry to address the glaring flaws in the first bill.

Since federal law supersedes state law, it would overrule the protections enshrined in the VT state constitution.

While I can not argue that this particular law negatively affects me, the precedent it sets is a dangerous one, and a step in the wrong direction when considered in the light of civil liberties and principle.

Principles often seem trivial to people who have already given up their liberties. The best they can hope for are the pragmatics of incrementally gaining some of that freedom back, regardless of whether it be enshrined as right or privilege. There is ample evidence of this on this particular subject.

For people who have not yet given up those liberties, principles are more important.

But, thankfully, this bill will likely die in the senate.

 

[FadingSwordsman]

Damn you speed reading! And it's such a short bill, too. Can't believe I missed that.

You're perfectly correct, gc70, I missed that part earlier. ><

LemmyCaution: The FG does not get precedent in issuing, revoking, or requiring CFLs, nor approving measures that qualify or disqualify a person for or from a CFL. That still stays up to the individual states. The FG does, on the other hand, gain precedent in saying legal documents from any state x must be honored in any state y which has an equivalent document. Since the FG already has that power, there is no gain in power there. It's the same thing as any other legal document: The FG has no control in regulating when any document is issued from a state, but they can absolutely say when other states must honor them.

 

[brickeyee]

You can sit there and say it is unconstitutional all day long. That doesn't make it so. Until some court rules, the law is constitutional.

How do you think the court cases get initiated?

Divine providence?

If Congress passed a law removing the free speech clause of the first amendment (not an amendment) would the law be constitutional until a court ruled?

Would you help enforce it?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Damn you speed reading! And it's such a short bill, too. Can't believe I missed that.

You're perfectly correct, gc70, I missed that part earlier. ><

LemmyCaution: The FG does not get precedent in issuing, revoking, or requiring CFLs, nor approving measures that qualify or disqualify a person for or from a CFL. That still stays up to the individual states. The FG does, on the other hand, gain precedent in saying legal documents from any state x must be honored in any state y which has an equivalent document. Since the FG already has that power, there is no gain in power there. It's the same thing as any other legal document: The FG has no control in regulating when any document is issued from a state, but they can absolutely say when other states must honor them.

You're just not getting the point I'm trying to make. At this juncture, I'm going to assume that's a willful rhetorical strategy.

The fed, as you detail above, also currently has jurisdiction to dictate to the states what goes on a drivers license. Ever hear of the Real ID act?

The fed's power to regulate the form and criteria for drivers licenses stems directly from the legislation mandating reciprocity of drivers licenses.

Expect a federal law standardizing CCL criteria just as soon as reciprocity is passed.

Fortunately, the bill is likely a dead letter.

 

[Bubba613]

How do you think the court cases get initiated?

Divine providence?

If Congress passed a law removing the free speech clause of the first amendment (not an amendment) would the law be constitutional until a court ruled?

Would you help enforce it?

How about a law that prohibited, "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States ... or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy".
You'd say right off that's unconstitutional, right? You could point to all kinds of things that make it so.
But guess what. That is the language of the Sedition Act of 1918, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in Schenck. So it is not unconstitutional at all.