Birch Knoll
Member
Amendment 4 was defeated. All amendments but one were defeated. The one which was agreed to requires a GAO study of the ability of LEOs to verify out-of-state CCW permits.
H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
Amendment 4 was defeated. All amendments but one were defeated. The one which was agreed to requires a GAO study of the ability of LEOs to verify out-of-state CCW permits.
danez71
Member
Anyone that doesnt think this is already basicaly happening is fooling themselves.
If a Govt agency gives you anything... they have a record of it somewhere. If the Feds or another state asked for it for crime, for example, they'd hand it over. The admendment would just formalize this.
Point is, tin foil hat concerns over things like this are a little late. The genie was let out of the bottle many years ago.... lists have been made and they have them.... and the lists will never go away.
Agreed.
I like to be convinced I'm wrong because that means I've learned something.
No ones been able to reconcile those two arguements against this bill and have really only provided fodder as to what could happen.
The Termite
Member
That's putting it kindly. I would have called her "dumb as a box of rocks".
It boggles my mind that she keeps getting re-elected.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
[size=+1]IT HAS BEGUN.[/size]
I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.
Here is a link to it: NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11
Woody
I warned y'all about how HR 822 is a mechanism to open the door to, and then expand, Feral(Federal) control over Concealed Carry, and add who-knows-what.
Excerpted from NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11 said:
Here is a link to it: NRA-ILA Alert Dated 11/18/11
Woody
Ole Humpback
Member
We need for this not to pass in any way, shape, or form. Other states are already getting going on the reciprocity bus, so lets let the 10th Amendment do its job. Good catch there as I had not seen this yet.
Librarian
Member
Woody, would you please explain 'how HR 822 is a mechanism' for anything to do with Schumer's S 436?
no database in GA you want to check a permit out you have to call the probate judge who issued the permit GA has 159 probate judges
Ole Humpback
Member
I think this goes to the Federal Gov't telling the states that Concealed Carry is now an issue to be handeled by the Federal Gov't. Once the Feds start saying where you can & cannot carry in the USA, they can also start adding all those pesky rules to who, what, when, & how for Concealed Carry.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
See what I highlighted in Post #154? The list of prohibited persons is part and parcel of HR 822. I warned about how easy it would be for Congress to expand that list in Post #83. S 346 seeks to do that.
I wonder if anyone on the Board of Directors of the NRA was/is aware of S 346 and how it segues so well with HR 822 ...
Woody
I wonder if anyone on the Board of Directors of the NRA was/is aware of S 346 and how it segues so well with HR 822 ...
Woody
The list of people prohibited from owning firearms is part of GCA '68. It has nothing at all to do with carry or HR 822. I fail to see how Schumer introducing again his annual bill to "close the gunshow loophole" has any bearing at all on HR 822.
beatledog7
Member
It'll all be made clear if 822 gets signed into law.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
dogmush said:
I can only assume you've never read HR 822. It's in there.
Woody
Rail Driver
Member
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Rail Driver said:
Look for the [size=+2]big red letters. [/size]
Woody
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things, and just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood
N003k
Member
ConstitutionCowboy...really? Yet, all it does is basically say that it doesnt cover people ALREADY prohibited from purchasing under federal law...you know, the people that wont get approved if they fill out a 4473 honestly. They ALREADY cover that, you are SERIOUSLY reaching for straws if you're going to claim a boiler plate part of the law is opening the floodgates for laws like this to somehow now magically succeed.
Rail Driver
Member
Thanks for mentioning that.
A standard clause referencing a pre-existing restriction is not going to open any doors for anything. HR 822 does not expand federal control over anything. It does not take any power from the States. Your highlighted clause simply states that this particular bill (HR 822) will not apply to already prohibited persons. There is NO PROVISION IN THE BILL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY THAT LIST IN ANY WAY.
The bill you cited has been introduced annually (that means every year) for quite some time now, and has never even come close to passing. It is one of literally hundreds of time consuming, useless drivel that won't pass but does serve the purpose of gumming up the House and Senate, thereby delaying pro-gun (and any other) legislation. These legislators that introduce these extremist bills know what they're doing, and they know their bills aren't going to pass, but they submit hundreds of them because each bill submitted has to be addressed if there is time. The more garbage legislation introduced, the longer it takes for actual valid legislation to be heard.
*Edit to add: You also ignored the second half of the clause you highlighted:
As you can clearly see, the power remains WITH THE STATE ISSUING THE PERMIT.
Birch Knoll
Member
Uh-huh. Because Chuck Schumer would never introduce anti-gun legislation, unless HR822 opened the door for him. Amazing that HR822 can do that even without becoming law.
Ole Humpback
Member
Anti-gun legislation by itself more than likely wouldn't make it on its own. But a pro-gun piece of FEDERAL legislation that uses a key piece of anti-gun legislation to function as the control mechanism is what opens the door.
As far as I understand the matter, Concealed Carry is not currently a Federally controlled item. The states issue the permits and each state has differing rules on obtaining a Concealed Carry permit. This would kick Concealed Carry up to the Federal level and then instead of each state deciding for itself as to who is qualified to obtain the permit, you have the federal gov't doing the same thing. This one provision would give the Federal gov't the control to decide who is or isn't allowed to get a permit:
Most states have shall issue stances on there permitting process. Can anyone point me to where the BATF has a shall issue stance on concealed carry? Given the BATF's flagrant violations of laws itself have wrote, what makes anyone think they will be the guardians of the 2A & RKBA?
Remember, this nations legal system works on precedents. Once a precedent is set, you can build almost anything you want off of it if you have the right argument. This bill would be a conduit for all sorts of anti-gun legislation if it passed because every anti-gun bill introduced would reference the part of this bill that delegates the decision of who is a qualified permit recipient to the federal gov't.
N003k
Member
Ole Humpback, can you point me to a state that will knowingly issue someone prohibited from possessing a firearm under current standing FEDERAL law a permit?
Or explain how a law REFERENCING standing FEDERAL restrictions will cause those restrictions to increase?
ETA:
Seriously, it's one thing to be against the law, but, come up with real reasons. Claiming that THIS Federal law opens that gates for further restrictions, because it references restrictions in place ALREADY under Federal law is...insane. If the fact those restrictions ALREADY exist hasn't led to rapidly increasing restrictions, why in the world would THIS law that just uses boilerplate language cause them to flood in?
Or explain how a law REFERENCING standing FEDERAL restrictions will cause those restrictions to increase?
ETA:
Seriously, it's one thing to be against the law, but, come up with real reasons. Claiming that THIS Federal law opens that gates for further restrictions, because it references restrictions in place ALREADY under Federal law is...insane. If the fact those restrictions ALREADY exist hasn't led to rapidly increasing restrictions, why in the world would THIS law that just uses boilerplate language cause them to flood in?
Last edited:
The entire course of objections to this bill has been based on paranoia. Now we are seeing the tidal wave of unrealism spill out. "This bill will ban assault weapons. Wait 'til the last minute and they sneak something in." It's nonsense. I would almost suspect the Brady Bunch of sneaking people in here to discredit gun rights people.
Um. BATF has no stance on carry because that isn't anything they are charged with enforcing.
The Sarge
Member
So if anybody disagrees with you they are hysterical Brady Bunch Anti Gunners?
NO, they're simply wrong. If someone had something that was actually based in fact, like a citation or something, there could be reasonable discussion. But so far we have had absurd assertions that Heller means the opposite of what it actually means, that the restrictions contained in the GCA of 1968 actually never existed until this bill appeared, that increasing the ability of people to carry guns is actually a clever plot to restrict that same ability, and that any anti gun legislation introduced (and that happens every session) is actually inspired by this piece of pro gun legislation. None of that passes the laugh test.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
From HR 822 said:
Any expansion of the list of prohibited persons will automatically expand the list of people who cannot carry state to state. Future expansion of the list of prohibited persons could bump people off the list of who might be able to carry state to state if and when this bill gets passed. It's a built in ex post facto provision which happens to be another unconstitutional aspect of HR 822.
The more you dive into this bill, the worse it gets!
Woody
- Status
