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.
Say what? This is what Maine requires for handgun safety training: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
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.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
Me said: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.
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.
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?
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.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.
My statement is factually true. As you yourself prove. No state, including VT had shall issue permits prior to FL.
Those places that allowed carry did so only with the case by case consent of the local constabulary.
First you put words in my mouth. Then you call me dishonest. I think the discussion is nearing its end.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.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm merely summarizing the implication of what you're asserting in favor of this bill.
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.
Bubba613 said:Yeah, can't have all those people toting guns in other states.
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.Not your way. The constitutional way is the way to go.
I'm tired of each Anti calling us licensed criminals in their eyes.