The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Glockman Parker on October 05, 2011, 09:49:56 AM
-
I've been excited about the possibility of National reciprocity but I have been receiving emails from Dudley Brown and the National Gun Rights Org. that say this is going to be a further way to get more gun control. His emails start like this...
"Last week I told you some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control."
What's the deal? Is this something we should support or not? ??? ??? I'd love to hear from others on this!! I know Michael has been in favor of it.
Thanks!
Larry
-
Probably worried that if the Feds get the lead on this they'll screw it up!
They need to have a reciprocity that's managed by the states IMO! Problem is, you can't get the states to agree on anything.
The 2nd Amendment is reciprocity as far as I'm concerned!
-
As I have thought about this over the years I am torn between wanting National Reciprocity, and strictly a true Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. My fear goes along Tom's line that if the Feds get involved with anything that requires or recognizes certification it will become restrictive and lower us to the lowest common denominator (far too many restrictions on when, where, how, etc.). It is this type of legislation that tends to make me go Nugent, and then try and act civil again.
By the way (TAB), going Nugent isn't all bad. I have a waiting list of professionals (doctors, attorneys, dentists, CPA's, investment counselors, etc.) wanting to take my carry, Refuse To Be A Victim, Firearm Safety, and new shooter classes. I have been told by some of my biggest supporters that it is my passion (Nugent), stature and self confidence that have them bringing in their staff and friends to our courses.
What I have learned is that we need to be loud and proud, and we need to refuse to back down! Now do it right!
-
I don't know Va's laws, but up here in NH I can have anything I can afford, and a CCW is a matter of a 1 page form and $10.
Unrestricted open carry, (the only infringements are those imposed by the Feds) Makes our laws even better than Texas.
I do not want my State legislature having to appease Chitcago and DC to get recognition.
-
I've been excited about the possibility of National reciprocity but I have been receiving emails from Dudley Brown and the National Gun Rights Org. that say this is going to be a further way to get more gun control. His emails start like this...
"Last week I told you some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control."
What's the deal? Is this something we should support or not? ??? ??? I'd love to hear from others on this!! I know Michael has been in favor of it.
Thanks!
Larry
While I share all of the sentiments voiced above, I will go out on a limb and say that I take with a grain of salt any projection of gloom and doom that immediately precedes a request for funds.
That's just me, YMMV.
-
I don't know Va's laws, but up here in NH I can have anything I can afford, and a CCW is a matter of a 1 page form and $10.
Unrestricted open carry, (the only infringements are those imposed by the Feds) Makes our laws even better than Texas.
I do not want my State legislature having to appease Chitcago and DC to get recognition.
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY, we have great guns laws in VA also.
-
I've been excited about the possibility of National reciprocity but I have been receiving emails from Dudley Brown and the National Gun Rights Org. that say this is going to be a further way to get more gun control. His emails start like this...
"Last week I told you some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control."
What's the deal? Is this something we should support or not? ??? ??? I'd love to hear from others on this!! I know Michael has been in favor of it.
Thanks!
Larry
I'm glad you brought this up. I was getting the same notices and it had me confused as to whom you should support. If you go to the NRA's website they explain everything and break it down and dispell some of the rumors and fears that The Nation Gun Rights Org was talking about. I thought it was funny that both groups were calling one another, "well meaning but misguided." I'm hoping it's a good thing but everytime I think of the government's track record it leaves me nervous. But check out the NRA's website and see what you think.
thanks, cause I was kind of wrestling with it too,
GATC
-
Here is the latest email from Dudley (got it today)....
Last week I told you some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control.
I was talking about H.R. 822, the so-called “National Reciprocity Act,” which could open the flood gates of gun control.
I’m calling it the National CCW Registration Act.
While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.
Can I count on you to take action RIGHT NOW? Rep. Lamar Smith is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that will hear H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act.
I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you are opposed to federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
Once the federal government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.
Now you may hear arguments that this bill doesn’t do that, and maybe that’s true... for now.
Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything... and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way.
That doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”
Gun owners have enough trouble with Republican-run Executive branches implementing the law improperly. Does anyone really think the Obama Administration is going to treat gun owners fairly?
I know many of you are frustrated that you can carry in some states but not others -- I’m frustrated, too.
I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go, and have worked to expand the ability of citizens to carry in dozens of states.
I believe I should be able to carry concealed -- without a permit -- in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.
But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.
I understand that many who support this bill sincerely just want their right to carry respected -- but cannot due to the fact that their state or another won’t do the right thing.
But the devil is truly in the details... and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.
This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense -- it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.
We’re talking about:
More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
Higher fees;
More training requirements;
A demonstration of “Need” for a permit;
More frequent renewal periods;
Federally-mandated waiting periods;
A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable;
The list of potential problems is endless.
I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
I haven’t even mentioned that this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms -- much less use them for self defense.
I don’t believe the intentions of the bill sponsors are intrinsically bad -- they’re just naive and misguided.
Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.
Even now, the statists in Congress are trying to adopt a National ID card, complete with biometric data that they’ve forced the states to conform to their mandated drivers license “standards.” The National Association for Gun Rights has been part of a group of liberty-minded organizations which have passed state legislation forbidding cooperation with a National ID card.
While many in the institutional gun control lobby will tell you this is a step forward for CCW permit holders, make no mistake, the National CCW Registration Act is a misguided attempt to protect our rights. It’s like asking the fox to guard the hen house.
They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections -- state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.
I’m sorry, but I refuse to entrust my liberty and privacy to a “trust us, they won’t do that” approach to dealing with Obama, the gun-grabbers or frankly most politicians of either party in Washington.
-
Beginning to understand the ramifications of "allowing" the Fed. Gov't to get involved.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/brad-kozak/h-r-822-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
H.R. 822: Be Careful What You Wish For
Posted on October 11, 2011 by Brad Kozak
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I’ve not stayed recently at a Holiday Inn Express. Yet I fancy myself intelligent enough to believe that I can tell a good idea from a bad one, and determine if I’m/we’re about to get played. Of course confidence men, swindlers and politicians have a name for such people. Call them “marks,” “victims,” or “constituents,” the result is all the same. And they rarely kiss you first. Which is why the latest missive from Dudley Do Right Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights gave me pause, and frankly set my Spidey sense a-tinglin’.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of crap I get in my inbox. I subscribe to a LOT of email newsletters, from gun rights groups, lobbyists, and the like. I read ‘em so you don’t have to. Frankly, a lot of what I read falls into the category of “Chicken Little-isms,” where people cry the equivalent of “the sky is falling” in order to beg for cash. I find those emails simultaneously unhelpful to the cause of the preservation of our Second Amendment rights, and downright disingenuous and boring. Particularly galling is to get one that cites a story that’s two or three years old as if it just happened. I’ve learned – the hard way – to fact-check EVERYthing I get from these email sources.
I take issue with a lot of the emails I get from the National Association for Gun Rights. I like their goals. Not so much about their methods. But every now and then, there’s a kernel of wheat in amongst the chaff.
The call to arms/plea for funds du jour from the NAFGR (sometimes I wonder if their acronym wouldn’t be more accurate if it spelled out “NAGYOU” or something like it), mentions some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control.
Frankly, I skim most of the NAFGR emails, and assign them to the electronic version of a circular file, if you know what I mean. But this one, for some reason, grabbed my attention long enough to read the whole thing. (Well, right up until the point where Dudley started begging for Benjamins.)
The “National Reciprocity Act” is supposed to force any state that authorizes conceal carry to reciprocate with permits issued by other states, much like every state in the union recognizes your state-issued driver’s license, regardless of the issuing state. Great idea. But the road to Hell is paved with not just good intentions, but great ideas. It’s that Law of Unintended Consequences that is a stone cold beeyatch.
Dudley’s point is that the bill has a couple of serious flaws:
* It uses the Federal bureaucracy to implement the policy
* It opens the door to the Feds setting standards for CCW permits, a potential first step in giving them a route in to regulate and restrict gun rights
* Because of the legislative process, it is anything BUT immune to amendments that could represent a field day for those who want to restrict our rights to possess guns.
* Because laws are administered by bureaucrats, the way the law is “interpreted” by the Obama Administration flunkies might well make the cure worse than the disease.
Hmm. Those are some interesting points. Let’s see. What Federal agency would likely be given the authority to implement such a law, once it goes on the books…um…have to be an agency charged with regulating guns…one that deals with gun registrations…oh, wait. I know. The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
RUH-rho, Rhorge!
Yessir, Mr. John Q. Gunowner, I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news. The good news? Your concealed handgun permit will be recognized by virtually every state in the Union. The bad news? The ATF is in charge of the program.
Yikes!
Now there’s no reason that the law couldn’t be amended, rewritten, or otherwise fixed (as in corrected) by insuring that, say the FBI is in charge of overseeing the law. I know, that’s only a minor step in the right direction. It’s like commuting a death sentence to having your arms chopped off. Have a nice day, now, y’hear? But how much do you know about how laws are made?
Remember, Jefferson himself advised that the two things you never wanted to see made are laws and sausages. Of the two, the harder one to stomach is watching laws get made. All it takes is one evil/mischievous/determined Congressional aide that slips something into the final version of the bill, and Voilá! We have verbiage that completely controverts the spirit and intent of the law.
Think that never happens? Talk to someone that’s worked on the Hill sometime. Make your hair curl, and if you have no hair, it will make it grow, curl, and then fall out again. Our pal Dudley calls this the “National CCW Registration Act.” I’m not sure he’s that far off the mark.
Here’s the deal. I’m not one to assume I’m gonna see gun grabbers under the bed every night, just waiting for their opportunity to grab my guns. But trusting in that bunch of over-paid, under-worked jackanapes we call Congress to NOT screw this up seems to me like giving them waaaay more credit than they deserve. But I’m not sure just what the solution is.
I’m sure that Chris Cox and his crack team of lobsters working the NRA-IRA wing are on top of this, but I’ve seen them back some really stupid legislation before, too. I’m really not eager to trust anybody and their motives, or take them at face value, when it comes to the potential to frittering away my hard-fought Second Amendment rights.
Dudley’s advice?
I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
So what is the right answer? I think Joe Bob Briggs, the Drive-In Movie Theater Critic of Grapevine, Texas may have put it best, when he said “Without eternal vigilance, it can happen here.” If we’re going to take our freedoms for granted, we’ll soon be wondering where they went. Stay informed. Stay alert. (The world needs more lerts.) And keep in contact with your Representative and Senators. The rights you save may be your own.
****
10th Amendment consequences also.....I'm starting to see a big red flag....IMHO.
-
Keep the feds out of it. I'm good to go in 34(?) states right now.
If I HAVE to travel to/through any of the other ones they can KMA if they think I'm going to do it unarmed.
-
My previous comments:
This bill is not good for gun owners because it proposes to have the federal government make law where it has no Constitutional authority to do so. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to legislate about how states deal with concealed carry of firearms. This is a states rights issue under the 9th and 10th amendments. It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling when the feds violate the law and it benefits gun owners, but what happens when/if the feds decide to make a new law saying that there can be no reciprocity between any states? It is a dangerous precedent to cede authority to the feds just because it is favorable at this moment. The consequences down the road are never good.
-
My previous comments:
This bill is not good for gun owners because it proposes to have the federal government make law where it has no Constitutional authority to do so. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to legislate about how states deal with concealed carry of firearms. This is a states rights issue under the 9th and 10th amendments. It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling when the feds violate the law and it benefits gun owners, but what happens when/if the feds decide to make a new law saying that there can be no reciprocity between any states? It is a dangerous precedent to cede authority to the feds just because it is favorable at this moment. The consequences down the road are never good.
FIFY. The more I hear the less I like this law. I do NOT want to give 'them' ANY control of guns. PERIOD!
-
FIFY. The more I hear the less I like this law. I do NOT want to give 'them' ANY control of guns. PERIOD!
I don't have any dual control guns. By the time I get my hand wrapped around the grip, and if it is a long gun, a hand on the fore stock there is no room for anyone else to have any control.
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They do have some authority over guns though.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
-
One concern is the NRA is really, really, pushing/lobbying hard for this.
Yet calling the ATF, (and really big fires), an incompetent agency full of bureaucrats and thugs.....
However, what Federal agency would likely head up a Nat. Reciprocity Law????
"Red Flag Alert"!!!!
Duh!....
-
I have a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD feeling that this is gonna bite us in the ass!
We are gonna lose much of the gains we have made over this, you watch.
-
Pick a state with the most restrictive laws vs Vermont or Alaska and what do we think will be the result?
I'd tolerate Massachusetts laws over New Jersey, Maryland, California et al.....
I thought it would be different in CT but I lived there for 13 months without a license because it's become a PITA to get the permit process complete. It looks easy but it was a bitch...
MA was simple by comparison. I've decided that in about 10 years or sooner, I'll be in NH with an angry Marine as my next door neighbor. ;)
I'd say that unless we get something that no one expects, we should leave things alone.
-
, I'll be in NH with an angry Marine as my next door neighbor.
But those kids will darn sure stay off the lawn.... ;)
Either way, the emails I get from the NRA, give me "alerts" regarding this legislation...That I need to support this or contribute to that....
I think it's a red herring, with ramifications I don't need or want the Fed involved with....Let's keep our State sanctioned reciprocity.
and the rest can piss up a rope.....One election, one blip of another mistake, (like BHO), can suddenly change the order of things.
Gee, like I really need Harry Reid, sanctioning a National "anything"....
-
Some of you check other forums as well, what is the opinion of this else where ?
-
Pick a state with the most restrictive laws vs Vermont or Alaska and what do we think will be the result?
I'd tolerate Massachusetts laws over New Jersey, Maryland, California et al.....
I'd say that unless we get something that no one expects, we should leave things alone.
That was what I was thinking too. Trying to treat it like a drivers license would never work, to many states with a LOT of votes, even with gun friendly Congressmen, would never sign off on it.
Also I'd bet that part of making it "national" would mean a database that they woud be more than happy to give out to the highest bidder.
-
Highest bidder makes it sound like they would have to pay to get access to the info.
Progressive gun hater - Hi, I have an agenda that would really be helped out by knowing who has a CCW permit.
Fred the Overfed Fed - Sorry, that list is not available.
PGH - So there is a list, right?
F OFF - Oh yes. We need it so we can keep our eye on folks that may say a discouraging word.
PGH - But it's for the children!
F OFF - Well why didn't you say so. I can run off 3000 copies and ship it to you free so it won't cost your organization a cent.
-
That or a paper that wants to "do a survey" under FIOA.
-
The NRA addresses the "con" issues with H.R 822 National Reciprocity.
Some may not favor the NRA, but, with their faults, I don't believe they are working against firearms owners....maybe not working as hard as they can for them, but not against them.
Here is a link to their Alert.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7147
-
The NRA addresses the "con" issues with H.R 822 National Reciprocity.
Some may not favor the NRA, but, with their faults, I don't believe they are working against firearms owners....maybe not working as hard as they can for them, but not against them.
Here is a link to their Alert.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7147
Let's hope that's what happens. Of course it also has to be passed.
-
I just got this from NRA - ILA
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
H.R. 822—the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” is scheduled for a vote on the U.S. House floor this Tuesday, November 15. We’ve told you the truth about why the legislation is very good for gun owners and now it is imperative that you contact your U.S. Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to vote for H.R. 822 WITH NO AMENDMENTS.
As we have been reporting all along, H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. The bill will enable America’s millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states by requiring states to recognize each others' lawfully-issued carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing or registration system; does not establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit; does not involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit; and it does not destroy or discourage the adoption of permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
-
I just got this from NRA - ILA
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
H.R. 822—the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” is scheduled for a vote on the U.S. House floor this Tuesday, November 15. We’ve told you the truth about why the legislation is very good for gun owners and now it is imperative that you contact your U.S. Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to vote for H.R. 822 WITH NO AMENDMENTS.
As we have been reporting all along, H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. The bill will enable America’s millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states by requiring states to recognize each others' lawfully-issued carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing or registration system; does not establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit; does not involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit; and it does not destroy or discourage the adoption of permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
YET!
-
give it time.
if we had any one in office that had any balls they would also pass a law making the LEO carry bill void.
The 1st thing "pro gun" thing I would do was pass a law saying if the citz can't have it, neither can the police.
Intrestingly enough I posted a poll on here as well as THR some years ago about another assult weapons ban. Not about the ban itself, but if there was another ban, it would also be for the police. It was a almost 100% approved of.
-
H.R. 822—the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” is scheduled for a vote on the U.S. House floor this Tuesday, November 15. We’ve told you the truth about why the legislation is very good for gun owners and now it is imperative that you contact your U.S. Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to vote for H.R. 822 WITH NO AMENDMENTS.
Somehow I don't see the highlighted part being successful. Seriously, how is the IL, NY and CA contingent going to leave this be?
Ain't gonna happen. Waaayy too many scumbags involved. (536)
I see a poison pill amendment like the old "armor piercing ammo" addition that Ted Kennedy used to kill off numerous bills.
-
I am all for national reciprocity, however, I fear that this will quickly lead to national standards.
As much as I believe in firearm safety and that people need to be taught safety, the bottom line is that we need to remember that the Second Amendment to The United States Constitution protects our right to keep and bear. No where does it state that we need to be trained, licensed or permitted. People also like to point out the rights of the states or local communities to create and enforce stricter laws than the higher jurisdictions. However, how do you allow these restrictions in the face of "shall not be infringed"?
I have another day to figure out what to say in my phone calls, but right now I keep reaching for my tinfoil hat due to fear of what this could lead to ???
-
While I'm pondering my previous post here is a thought that I think is in the best interest of all law abiding citizens of the United States of America:
Our government issue (local state) driver's license or identification card (for those that choose not to drive) serves as your permit to purchase and carry in any manor you chose. If you commit a felony that removes any constitutionally protected rights you are issued a new card that states such. When you wish to purchase a gun the dealer calls an information center, gives ID information and receives a go or no go. If you are questioned by law enforcement they get a go or no go for your ownership and/or carry based on this license.
This would be a no requirement and no fee part of your ID.
I will also point out that this is a stricter level of exercising and protecting of Rights than our government will allow to assure valid elections. I'd like to see the anti-gunner, pro-illegal alien liberals argue their way out of that one >:(
-
Count me in as one of those wary of a Trojan horse.
Remember how the G got the drinking age raised to 21? They threatened to withhold federal dollars to any state who refused to do so. What's to stop them from doing that again with concealed carry? No, thanks. If you don't like your state's laws, then get them changed or move.
-
Count me in as one of those wary of a Trojan horse.
Remember how the G got the drinking age raised to 21? They threatened to withhold federal dollars to any state who refused to do so. What's to stop them from doing that again with concealed carry? No, thanks. If you don't like your state's laws, then get them changed or move.
Actually, while it might cause some problems, stopping payments to the state might not be a bad thing....in the long run for sure.
The Feds shouldn't have much of our money to be using to bribe/coerce the states anyway.
Some states have not caved to this tactic in other areas and have learned to do with out the dole.
The tricky part is to stop the state's citizens from paying taxes to the feds.
-
My marriage license and drivers license are both good in all 50 states without any special conditions when I visit outside my home state. A CCL should be the same way, just because other states don't give their subjects the rights of citizens shouldn't trump my license when I enter their states. National reciprocity shouldn't come with conditions but if that is all we can get it is better then nothing.
-
My marriage license and drivers license are both good in all 50 states without any special conditions when I visit outside my home state. A CCL should be the same way, just because other states don't give their subjects the rights of citizens shouldn't trump my license when I enter their states. National reciprocity shouldn't come with conditions but if that is all we can get it is better then nothing.
No, it isn't.
-
H.R.822.RH, as added to the calendar, now includes a section mandating a GAO audit of states' non-resident licensing systems:
SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112dwCCv1:: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112dwCCv1::)
If you were nervous about this before, you should really be nervous now.
-
My marriage license and drivers license are both good in all 50 states without any special conditions when I visit outside my home state. A CCL should be the same way, just because other states don't give their subjects the rights of citizens shouldn't trump my license when I enter their states. National reciprocity shouldn't come with conditions but if that is all we can get it is better then nothing.
That sir is what has gotten us all of the infringements we now accept. It is exactly what we often complain about when it comes to organizations like the NRA: They negotiate away parts of our freedoms.
We are better off without a bad bill than letting them drive more wedges into the cracks they have already created in our protections.
-
While I'm pondering my previous post here is a thought that I think is in the best interest of all law abiding citizens of the United States of America:
Our government issue (local state) driver's license or identification card (for those that choose not to drive) serves as your permit to purchase and carry in any manor you chose. If you commit a felony that removes any constitutionally protected rights you are issued a new card that states such. When you wish to purchase a gun the dealer calls an information center, gives ID information and receives a go or no go. If you are questioned by law enforcement they get a go or no go for your ownership and/or carry based on this license.
This would be a no requirement and no fee part of your ID.
I will also point out that this is a stricter level of exercising and protecting of Rights than our government will allow to assure valid elections. I'd like to see the anti-gunner, pro-illegal alien liberals argue their way out of that one >:(
I posted this one yesterday afternoon: Any comments or debates on demands that we go this direction?
-
Basically a NICS check to see if your license gets a big red X on it.
Works for me.
-
I don't see the trap in this bill, it has my support and I will urge my Representative to vote for it.
-
I don't see the trap in this bill, it has my support and I will urge my Representative to vote for it.
Mort,
I don't see an immediate threat either. However, the tinfoil armadillo on my head warns me about how any time the feds duplicate something states already have they soon take over and manipulate the states.
My question for my elected officials is "Why don't you push for my plan as stated earlier?"
-
The Fed does not have a good enough record to handle trash collection properly. So I am encouraged how?
Maybe my post on Water Smitty, and his 2nd Amend Rights hold true. A Soros, Progressive, Feinstien/Schumer sponsored database will KNOW who you are, where you are, and what recent guns you have.
All the easier to make no knock entries....Keep trusting the gov't......This is not a tinfoil hat folks.....
A Gov't database of CCW holders? Really? I feel better already...
Eric Holder even approves....He learned form Janet Reno so it's all good....
-
Just started a five minute "Vote on Rules for Debate for Bill; Rule Calls for 1 Hour General Debate, 10 Amendments"
-
Carrying Concealed Weapons
U.S. House: Vote on Rules for Debate for Bill; Rule Calls for 1 Hour General Debate, 10 Amendments
H RES 463
Yea Nay Pres NV
Republican 236 6
Democrat 35 153 4
Totals 271 153 10
"With the vote the resolution to reconsider is laid on the table."
Prior to the vote it was announced that the debate will take place on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.
-
Here's a question. Regardless of whether you are sceptical of a federal bill on CCW (as I am, or support it: why bring it up now? Short of monumental GOP stupidity in the next few months the GOP will control both houses. Why bring it up and have to deal with the Dems when you can wait a few months and have a much stronger position vis a vis amendments? I mean granted Reid is pro 2A, but the committee chairmen, not as many as I'd like. Just askin'.
FQ13
-
I mean granted Reid is pro 2A, but the committee chairmen, not as many as I'd like. Just askin'.
FQ13
Are you sure about that? I think Reid is about as pro 2A as Hugo Chavez
He may talk a good game, but check his voting record.
http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm
-
Are you sure about that? I think Reid is about as pro 2A as Hugo Chavez
He may talk a good game, but check his voting record.
http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm
He's got an A rating from the NRA and opposed the AWB all the way through. That's more than W. who wanted to renew it. As far as the link, a lot of those were procedural votes taken out of context. Sometimes you vote for something so you can vote against it. Eg, letting a bill out of commitee as a favor to a party member who wants to claim some credit,when you both know it will die on the floor. Or alternatively making something come to the floor so you can embarrass those who vote for it, even if they know it will lose. Its called strategic voting and its every day on the Hill.
FQ13
FQ13
-
Sen. Reid has learned how to make himself look pro-gun when he is really one of our worst enemies. He is the same as many gun owners that view gun rights as being hunting, sporting, and maybe even competition, but they can't really understand competition. They all talk Second Amendment protections, and they all strongly support them, but they have a distorted view of what the Second Amendment really protects and why.
This is the reason I have proposed my belief. It is also the reason I try and find a way to be "Uncle Ted" in a more crowd friendly manor. We don't need more rules and laws that grant us permission to exercise our constitutionally protected rights! Let me exercise my Second Amendment protected right in the same way we protect an illegal's voting rights today.
-
-
If you get C-Span they will cover the debate on this today (Wednesday) at 12:00pm ET.
-
Even on subjects that interest me , I find CSPAN about as interesting as watching paint dry.
By the time some failed lawyer gets done talking around the actual answer I've forgotten what the equally long winded question was.
-
Even on subjects that interest me , I find CSPAN about as interesting as watching paint dry.
By the time some failed lawyer gets done talking around the actual answer I've forgotten what the equally long winded question was.
True! However, it is the actual process, and it is the actual debate. There is no need to rely on the talking heads and their translation, and when you do listen to the so called experts tear the info apart you know what was actually said in the process.
-
I prefer the "talking heads", they can't pronounce most of the big words so they have to use English.
-
There is our difference: I trust the talking heads less than the politicians, so I'd chose to hear the actual info rather than a someone's take on what the info should be.
-
I"ve been watching the CSPAN debate coverage and the amendments for a while now.
Holding back the vomit wasn't easy and holding back the laughter wasn't possible. How some of these room temperature IQs got elected is mind boggling.
Enlightened debate wasn't exactly on the forefront. VPC 'save the children' BS countered easily by people with working brains like Trey Gowdy from S. Carolina.
I learned that Anton Jackson from In Living Color, changed his name to Hank Johnson and moved to Georgia!
Sheila Lee, Carolyn McCarthy, David Cicilline & John Conyers should be keel-hauled on an aircraft carrier.....the names to be added to that list is nearly endless.
-
Given her race and gender I need to be very careful about name calling, but how did you like the female type person from Texas with the picture of the child getting a vaccination crying that it voting this terrible piece of legislation down is all about protecting the children, or the idiot from GA I believe that is "pro Second Amendment" and all for concealed carry, but thinks that this bill is horrible and actually weakens our Rights so it must be turned down?
-
I must add my apologies to TAB in advance, because according to a Rep. from Kalifornia if this passes we will be forcing them to join Illinois and eliminate all carry by private citizens. After all, it is the only way they can protect their public and law enforcement officers from the dangerous idiots from other states that will now have the right to carry in their fine and safe state.
-
It will never see the light of day in this Senate. Of course neither did Obamacare...
-
Given her race and gender I need to be very careful about name calling, but how did you like the female type person from Texas with the picture of the child getting a vaccination crying that it voting this terrible piece of legislation down is all about protecting the children
She was the first on my list, Sheila Jackson Lee. I hope she goes to the TX 'special place' and gets her own injection - - "for the children."
The GA gent was Rob Woodall and I couldn't figure why he was going on his rant about keeping the current CCW state laws in place. It was my understanding that 822 didn't stop states from doing with their resident permits as they please. Pro 2A and was a yea vote anyway.
It was refreshing to hear the Representative from IL saying that Chicago has had concealed carry for decades - just not by the law abiding.
I agree with r_w - this is going to die in the senate, or get amended to death, whichever is most painful to us.
-
I'm glad I was able to catch about a third of this today, but I wish I had the debate recorded so I could get all the names and arguments down like you have. Damn work keeps getting in the way!
-
Correction - It is now stating that Rob Woodall voted against the bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml
-
Fox/AP is reporting the vote as 272 to 154. It would take two-thirds of those voting to override Obama's veto. If everyone who voted the first time also showed up for the override vote, it would take about 284 votes to override the veto. Do you think they could muster the 12 votes? The Senate has no parallel bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/16/house-to-vote-on-concealed-firearm-permit-bill/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/16/house-to-vote-on-concealed-firearm-permit-bill/?test=latestnews)
-
Thats assuming it makes it back thru unchanged... I wouldn't count on that.
Even if this does pass, I have little doubt that several AGs will be filing law suits to stop it.
-
Thats assuming it makes it back thru unchanged... I wouldn't count on that.
Even if this does pass, I have little doubt that several AGs will be filing law suits to stop it.
That is probably true...
But I wonder how strong their case would be when they have not objected to Driver's License reciprocity?
More folks are killed with automobiles each year than guns and automobiles are used in the commission of crimes probably more then firearms and automobiles are owned by more folks then own guns....
And even if they do win, it seems that may lead to a case mandating legal open carry for all non-residents who can carry legally in their home state....which isn't an unwelcome eventuality.
-
That is probably true...
But I wonder how strong their case would be when they have not objected to Driver's License reciprocity?
More folks are killed with automobiles each year than guns and automobiles are used in the commission of crimes probably more then firearms and automobiles are owned by more folks then own guns....
And even if they do win, it seems that may lead to a case mandating legal open carry for all non-residents who can carry legally in their home state....which isn't an unwelcome eventuality.
there are 2 outcomes I can forsee, 1 the law is thrown out or is watered down to the point where it does nothing.
2 they creat national standards.
remember if you lose you DL in one state, you can't just move ti a duffrent state and get another. you can with a ccw.
-
I agree with TAB here. I'm good in something like 37 states with my Fl. permit. I expect that number to go up. I get that I'll never carry in Hi. or NJ., but I can live with that. I think the states are doing a pretty good job of negotiating this sort of thing on their own. I don't trust the feds here.
FQ13
-
TAB has a vested interest in seeing this fail.
If it passes and everyone can carry everywhere, he will have to stop calling Uncle Ted scum because he got sworn in as a deputy sheriff and could carry everywhere when other could not......
-
I'm still campaigning for my proposal: We have the Second Amendment, and that is good nationwide! If I break a law that negates my constitutionally protected rights it will be noted on my driver's license or state identification just like a drunk driving incident would be. I want to purchase a gun, they call in my id number and if I'm legal I take the gun, if I am carrying they call in my id number and if I'm legal I walk.
Simple Huh? And as I have said before, this is far more restriction than the courts will allow for voting.
-
I'm still campaigning for my proposal: We have the Second Amendment, and that is good nationwide! If I break a law that negates my constitutionally protected rights it will be noted on my driver's license or state identification just like a drunk driving incident would be. I want to purchase a gun, they call in my id number and if I'm legal I take the gun, if I am carrying they call in my id number and if I'm legal I walk.
Simple Huh? And as I have said before, this is far more restriction than the courts will allow for voting.
I like it. National reciprocity as it is working it's way through Congress could screw me good. As a NJ resident, would that mean I COULD NOT carry in any state since I can't get CCW in my home state?
-
TAB has a vested interest in seeing this fail.
If it passes and everyone can carry everywhere, he will have to stop calling Uncle Ted scum because he got sworn in as a deputy sheriff and could carry everywhere when other could not......
you forget, I have my ccw.
-
you forget, I have my ccw.
But you can't carry everywhere like that scum can.
-
I'm still campaigning for my proposal: We have the Second Amendment, and that is good nationwide! If I break a law that negates my constitutionally protected rights it will be noted on my driver's license or state identification just like a drunk driving incident would be. I want to purchase a gun, they call in my id number and if I'm legal I take the gun, if I am carrying they call in my id number and if I'm legal I walk.
Simple Huh? And as I have said before, this is far more restriction than the courts will allow for voting.
I totally agree....but what are the chances that getting there in one great leap will be accomplished?
-
I'm still campaigning for my proposal: We have the Second Amendment, and that is good nationwide! If I break a law that negates my constitutionally protected rights it will be noted on my driver's license or state identification just like a drunk driving incident would be. I want to purchase a gun, they call in my id number and if I'm legal I take the gun, if I am carrying they call in my id number and if I'm legal I walk.
Simple Huh? And as I have said before, this is far more restriction than the courts will allow for voting.
You just don't get it, do you ?.
The 3 most glaring problems with ridiculous , impractical foolishness are that it's only 4 lines, it should be at least 142 pages,
it's in English, not one word of Latin in the whole thing, and there's no pork, no professional would ever write a bill with no pork.
Yes, it may be simple, and easy for everyone to understand, but there's no pork and that is inexcusable !
-
Check out todays NYT. Gail Collins has a whole column telling us how evil we are. >:( :-*
FQ13
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/collins-something-to-shoot-for.html?ref=gailcollins
-
Check out todays NYT. Gail Collins has a whole column telling us how evil we are. >:( :-*
FQ13
Link?
-
Link?
Oops! :-[
FQ13
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/collins-something-to-shoot-for.html?ref=gailcollins
-
there are 2 outcomes I can forsee, 1 the law is thrown out or is watered down to the point where it does nothing.
2 they creat national standards.
remember if you lose you DL in one state, you can't just move ti a duffrent state and get another. you can with a ccw.
Wrong! If you commit a crime that denies you your constitutionally protected rights you will not be able to get a carry permit in another state. The background checks will get you.
-
you forget, I have my ccw.
If this passes you will not have a permit! One of your Representatives has said that if this goes through California will quit issuing permits rather than allow the Right to be exercised by people from other states.
-
Wrong! If you commit a crime that denies you your constitutionally protected rights you will not be able to get a carry permit in another state. The background checks will get you.
WRONG. In some states a minor drug conviction is enough to deny a ccw, in others its not. In some states( CA for example) if you have back child support they take your ccw( as well as your DL and any other professional or biz lic), move too NV and they could careless.
-
WRONG. In some states a minor drug conviction is enough to deny a ccw, in others its not. In some states( CA for example) if you have back child support they take your ccw( as well as your DL and any other professional or biz lic), move too NV and they could careless.
I don't know about now, but a decade ago Tx. would DQ you if you were delinquent on student loans.
FQ13
-
WRONG. In some states a minor drug conviction is enough to deny a ccw, in others its not. In some states( CA for example) if you have back child support they take your ccw( as well as your DL and any other professional or biz lic), move too NV and they could careless.
So, if you get DQ'ed in one state for it's "picky" reason, you can still move to another state without that same restraint and get your CCW.
That seems very much like getting a driver's license in another state if one cancels yours?
-
TAB and FQ,
The situations that you cite are the reasons that reasonable states went to shall issue rather than leaving the decision in the hands of emotional officials. There is no state that will allow a permit to a person convicted of a right denying crime.
Also, my understanding is that this Bill is written to require you to have your home state permit if it is offered, so that would stop people just getting another state's. This is what Utah had in mind with their law that took affect last May.
TAB,
You have a larger concern with the fact that your dictators are going to throw a tantrum and infringe your right completely!
-
I think CA might be backing themselves into a corner.
Didn't they just pass a law outlawing open carry?
Seems that if the now outlaw CC, they have totally obstructed the 2A right.
That one will be in court in a heart beat.
-
Screw CA and anyone who chooses to live there. They gave up their rights to the politicians long ago. I have yet to meet anyone from there that has a spine anymore. That social experiment has failed miserably and should be abandoned.
-
My ex - wife was from Ca.
She thought I was paranoid for carrying, until the day some guy tried to yank her door open in traffic.
Where ever she is now she probably has a CCW.
-
Screw CA and anyone who chooses to live there. They gave up their rights to the politicians long ago. I have yet to meet anyone from there that has a spine anymore. That social experiment has failed miserably and should be abandoned.
I have an old girlfriend who lives in Davis who's very conservative, very Catholic and very angry about whats happened to her adopted state. Moving isn't an option for her at this point in her life and she loves the weather. There are two parts of California if you remove the Bay area and most of the south. There are still a few Americans left...
-
I'm very sorry to hear that she lives in davis. Its building department makes the ones in the bay area look normal. NO bs the entire town is ran by a bunch of controling hippy freaks.
-
I'm very sorry to hear that she lives in davis. Its building department makes the ones in the bay area look normal. NO bs the entire town is ran by a bunch of controling hippy freaks.
It's a Ca. college town, what do you expect ?
-
It's a Ca. college town, what do you expect ?
the rest of yolo county is great, its just davis. I could rant for hours about davis, lets just say I'd rather deal with the sacramento historic socity then I would the davis building department. Trust me, thats saying ALOT.
FWIW, my Historic socity up charge was $3000. That should tell you every thing you need to know about them, the davis building department is worse. atleast 10x over.
-
My dad still lives outside Oakland and during the 04 election the RNC would not send him any signs or stickers because his area was "a lost cause" and not worth the effort but they were more than happy to send them to me in Fresno.
My biggest problem is my job is only done in CA (San Diego, Ventura, and LA Counties) and here in MD. There is a couple spots in NV (Fallon) but not much.