Contact your representative now for ccw

[Don P]

If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state

We would NOT be allowed to carry and would have to abide by the laws of the state like in NYC no carry. The proposed law is bad and offer NO GLIMMER of hope to those in states where CCW is next to impossible. How about the possibility of NYS just saying no all together to CCW if H.B. 822 passes????? Could happen in any state that does not agree with H.B. 822

[Hardcase]

GI Sandv, thanks for the additional info on the Commerce Clause. You said much more clearly what I was thinking.

[oneounceload]

A New Yorker here...

This bill gives us in commie states a glimmer of hope.

If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state, how can the state deny the residents the same right? This opens up a door to challenging ridiculous restrictions that are imposed on us by the New York State. Currently, NYS carry permits explicitly forbid holders from carrying in NYC. Yet, if HR822 becomes law, tourists will be able to do so.

I say, let's break the barriers! Let all visitors carry concealed weapons. NYC will be forced to finally open its doors to CCW. From there, it's only a couple of more steps to making this state a shall-issue entity.

I hope and pray that HR822 becomes law. Screw you, Bloomberg and Schumer! The iron curtain is coming down.

And for those that oppose the bill, whose side are you on? Are you with anties? Or are you for Constitution? This issue is not a state issue anyway. 2nd Amendment does not stop at NY border. There's nothing in this bill that violates States Rights. It just enforces Full Faith and Closure. Otherwise, why aren't the Southern States allowed to have slavery, segregation and whatever else they had before the Civil Rights movement.

Once again, everyone please call their Senators to support this bill.

Wrong - what they will do is make more restrictions
People are trying to use one amendment to work on another
NYC and others will first - tie it up in courts for a decade or three
then, IF they lose, they will just redesignate where you can carry - which will be no where except maybe your hotel room

Way too many folks here, it seems, that have not lived through the gun acts from 68 and 86 nor understand the maelstrom of political fighting this will entail - to no ones advantage in the end.

Do NOT let the Feds into this argument - nothing good every came from them in any of these situations

[youngunz4life]

We would NOT be allowed to carry and would have to abide by the laws of the state like in NYC no carry

Don't listen to this advice. It is wrong. I'm done w/this thread and I'm not surprised these people think twice before helping gun advocates. Not everyone is in there little world and is OK because he/she can carry. For those that have a much bigger scope, getting every single non-resident permit and resident CCW is absolutely painstaking and ridiculous. You all have a good one(as in Holiday Season).

[therealdeal]

A New Yorker here...

This bill gives us in commie states a glimmer of hope.

If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state, how can the state deny the residents the same right? This opens up a door to challenging ridiculous restrictions that are imposed on us by the New York State. Currently, NYS carry permits explicitly forbid holders from carrying in NYC. Yet, if HR822 becomes law, tourists will be able to do so.

I say, let's break the barriers! Let all visitors carry concealed weapons. NYC will be forced to finally open its doors to CCW. From there, it's only a couple of more steps to making this state a shall-issue entity.

I hope and pray that HR822 becomes law. Screw you, Bloomberg and Schumer! The iron curtain is coming down.

And for those that oppose the bill, whose side are you on? Are you with anties? Or are you for Constitution? This issue is not a state issue anyway. 2nd Amendment does not stop at NY border. There's nothing in this bill that violates States Rights. It just enforces Full Faith and Closure. Otherwise, why aren't the Southern States allowed to have slavery, segregation and whatever else they had before the Civil Rights movement.

Once again, everyone please call their Senators to support this bill.

RIGHT ON! It is amazing how many people opposed to the bill feel like they have it all figured out?! What a crock.

[batjka]

I disagree completely. They will not outlaw CC. Too many people are carrying in NY and the political fallout will be too great. Plus, they will be spanked in Court.

I see nothing but good coming out of this bill.

[divil]

A person carrying a concealed handgun under
2 this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject
3 to the same conditions or limitations that apply to resi-
4 dents of the State who have permits issued by the State
5 or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

What will happen here if this bill becomes law is states like NY will simply impose burdensome "conditions or limitations" - like, for instance, you have to pay a special tax, or your gun has to be on a special list, and has to be inspected by some department etc. etc. This way, they can effectively continue with the status quo - the conditions/limitations can be tailored so that they are not too bad for residents who have a CCW but extremely difficult/impossible for non-residents.

States that are CCW-friendly but don't necessarily have full reciprocity at the moment will simply accept the new law and probably will not try to but obstacles in the way of non-residents, because it's not worth the hassle for them. They would have to upset a lot of their own residents, so they will just live with it. So, there is some benefit in it, from that point of view.

If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state, how can the state deny the residents the same right?

In exactly the same way that they are denying it now. Why would it be different?

[batjka]

Sure there are obstacles they can put forth to try to prevent this from happening. However, any act like this opens them up to court review and scrutiny. So in the end they might lose anything they have on the books already.

As far as the limitations go, the bill talks about restricted places that some states designate. New York actually has a lot less limitations than most CCP-friendly states.

NYC does issue its own CCP, and because of that it will be open for out-of-staters to carry. However, since NYS permits are not valid within NYC, New York residents will not be able to exercise their rights there. Now, if NYC outlaws all carry within its borders it will be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Federal Court will force them to issue permits again. Plus, Donald Trump and DeNiro will get ****** off at Bloomy and prevent him from doing such an unlawful act.

[divil]

Sure there are obstacles they can put forth to try to prevent this from happening. However, any act like this opens them up to court review and scrutiny. So in the end they might lose anything they have on the books already.

I don't see how it would open them up to scrutiny more than they already are. This law does not establish any rights whatsoever. It just says that the state will extend the same privileges to non-resident CCW holders that it extends to residents. I am no expert but I can't see a case like that being a priority for the Federal courts.

Now, if NYC outlaws all carry within its borders it will be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Federal Court will force them to issue permits again. Plus, Donald Trump and DeNiro will get ****** off at Bloomy and prevent him from doing such an unlawful act.

I believe there is a case, or cases, in the federal court system to establish exactly that - whether banning carry is a violation of the 2nd amendment. The issue is not settled yet. So it's far from clear at this point.

[C0untZer0]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4846129.story

[divil]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4846129.story

Some states are notorious for lax screening that gives a free pass to convicted felons, drunk drivers and the mentally ill. But under the House bill, other states would have to let these demonstrably dangerous visitors tote their guns in public. The state with the loosest standards would get to impose them on everyone else.

I was not aware that there are states that issue concealed carry permits to convicted felons. In any case, said felons are prohibited from coming within spitting distance of a gun anyway (under federal law) so it's hard to imagine what the use right to carry a gun in another state would be to them.

[egor20]

A traveler from Texas, say, would be entitled to pack his pistol on a visit to California — regardless of the preferences of Californians. (Because it doesn't issue such permits

I just love propaganda.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4846129.story

[Hardcase]

I was not aware that there are states that issue concealed carry permits to convicted felons. In any case, said felons are prohibited from coming within spitting distance of a gun anyway (under federal law) so it's hard to imagine what the use right to carry a gun in another state would be to them.

I listened to that argument during the House debate and scratched my head. According to opponents, drug dealers, violent criminals and other unsavory characters have easy access to concealed carry permits all over the country, except for those few states that are "forward thinking" enough to protect their citizens by making it darned near impossible to get a permit.

But I don't know of any state that allows those people to get permits. It was about as much of a red herring as the liberal opposition raising the states' rights issue. The former was a lie, the latter was insincere.

[alloy]

Don't some states allow for restoration of rights, for instance Florida?

[Chaz88]

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience..."

This part of the quote might be a legitimate concern. We all took an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES foreign and DOMESTIC.

[oneounceload]

It truly is amazing how many here think the Federal Government, and especially THIS administration is their friend when it comes to gun ownership

Here's a hint - they AREN'T, and unlike the Chicago article saying how the laxest state will set the rules, it will be the opposite - the strictest state will for "uniformity", and we will lose much more than we could possibly gain. The potential restrictions that can be easily imposed while still following the "letter of the law" can turn most CCW guns into expensive paperweights

[therealdeal]

It truly is amazing how many here think the Federal Government, and especially THIS administration is their friend when it comes to gun ownership

ahh, that is sortof why the president would veto the bill if given the opportunity. I don't recall anyone saying this, but check ourt the reps who SUPPORT the bill and get back to me.

Here's a hint - they AREN'T, and unlike the Chicago article saying how the laxest state will set the rules, it will be the opposite - the strictest state will for "uniformity", and we will lose much more than we could possibly gain.

why do you think the antis are against this bill? You might want to ask yourself this question because the main reason is this bill will do wonders for the CCW movement and open up many doors for the legal CCW and it WILL gain support and momentum when given the chance.

**I feel the chicago argument is just as bad as your argument and actually more plausible. The truth is neither will happen, and states will still manage their constituents their own way while adhering to the federal law imposed(which absolutley no anti gun states want to!!) watch how fast state reps move to adhere to the law when it comes down. then and only then will you truly understand because you feel they will move quick magically somehow to thwart the fed govt, all CCWs, and so-on

[oneounceload]

ahh, that is sortof why the president would veto the bill if given the opportunity. I don't recall anyone saying this, but check ourt the reps who SUPPORT the bill and get back to me.

MY rep, the man who wrote the bill and whose office is across town from me?

Yep, checked him out

I see this going wrong in so many ways - just like the healthcare that no one read - this is one camel you do NOT want sticking its nose under the tent

[Rusty35]

therealdeal
Senior Member

why do you think the antis are against this bill? You might want to ask yourself this question because the main reason is this bill will do wonders for the CCW movement and open up many doors for the legal CCW and it WILL gain support and momentum when given the chance.

Better still how will this bill ever pass unless the anti's vote for it?

Sure seems like it didn't meet with much resistance in the House.

[Tom Servo]

the main reason is this bill will do wonders for the CCW movement and open up many doors for the legal CCW and it WILL gain support and momentum when given the chance.

Really? And you've got a crystal ball with that kind of accuracy?

First off, it's not going to get signed, so all we're doing is armchair quarterbacking. What is going to get the ball rolling is a Supreme Court decision affirming a right to carry. From there, the states and courts will fight it out over what constitutes a defensible infringement on that right.

The difference is huge. HR 822 simply asks that a certain kind of permitted privilege be transferrable from state to state. That's a whole different enchilada. Furthermore, HR 822 leaves the door open for states like Illinois to continue to deny the right altogether.

Just for fun, let's say we live in a land of magical unicorns and elves that don't steal my shoes and burn them. HR 822 gets signed into law. It will be challenged in the courts by New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, or some combination thereof.

Then, the question before the court will not be one of rights, but of a restricted activity. That could set disastrous precedent for us.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court decides what the 2nd Amendment means, and right now that's limited to the right to keep a handgun in the home, subject to fees, registration, and approval.

[Don P]

For those who don't follow the news. Last night it came across on the banner at the bottom of the screen. The feds are suing UT as they did AL with regards to immigration laws enacted by the states preempting federal laws. Now lets put in the H.B.822 context Do you really think if a state just stops issuing CCW permits that the feds will bring a law suit against that state. I think not. It is already being talked about that if the current administration is re-elected that will be the time they go after the 2nd amendment with a vengeance. Again we are better off with out this bill so we will still have SCOTUS to go to. I still think that H.B. 822 will remove SCOTUS from the equation

[C0untZer0]

Good point about immigration law - the outcome of those cases could ultimately have an effect on how the fed tried to regulate gun laws - even without 822!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's been a fun debate. But a warning - do not use terms like 'libtards'.

We don't do childish partisan insults.

Discuss the merits of the bill and practical details.

GEM

[therealdeal]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ics-for-obama/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good article! Just a warning - if you comment don't get into general politics or insults about this or that political issue.