|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 27, 2011, 10:44 AM | #201 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
If this bill does pass, it will mean that some portion of the gun control crowd supported. Why would the gun control crowd support it? I hate admitting I am wrong, but would love to be wrong in this instance. |
|
November 27, 2011, 10:56 AM | #202 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Have you seen any comments by the NRA about why they think the commerce clause needs to be involved in the 2A? |
|
November 27, 2011, 12:48 PM | #203 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The bill might have problems but it won't get passed. It can get frozen in the Senate and not signed by the Pres.
So that's a given. Thus, the NRA can support it as a statement about concealed carry and to embarass the antis for the next election cycle.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 27, 2011, 01:03 PM | #204 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
So basically Glen, what you are saying is that they are gambling with our rights? Isn't that counterproductive to what they stand for? I mean, suppose for a minute that the antis wake up to what is being said here and they see those opportunities to claim back those advancements and vote it in. Would that not be a huge defeat? Could the NRA then recover from such a backhand? I can't see where they would make such a potentially monumental mistake. If these rights are then taken back, they stand to lose membership, revenue, and clout on something that is obvious to everyone but them?
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
November 27, 2011, 01:19 PM | #205 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
Today, 07:44 AM #201
Rusty35 Member Quote:
|
|
November 27, 2011, 01:56 PM | #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Glenn is right different things can be done beause it is just theatre at this point(BUT it does have a means to an end).
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 27, 2011, 02:21 PM | #207 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
What are the differences between HR 822 as introduced, and HR 822 as sent to the Senate? I have attached the two versions for your own comparison.
Should one of the cases get to the Supreme Court, we know that the anti-gun Justices would hold just that. Justice Kennedy would side with the 4 anti-gun Justices, as I believe he is opposed to public carry. So... It is possible that a 5-4 decision could come out (dissenting: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). More probable would be a 6-3 decision (dissenting: Alito, Scalia and Thomas). My crystal ball says that it would be a 7-2 decision with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Regardless, that would be the end of the right to carry. As for why the anti-gunners are screaming (loudly) against this bill? Have you ever heard of a "Trap Play" in football? They are screaming against this bill in order to get us to support it. |
November 27, 2011, 02:36 PM | #208 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I doubt the antis think that deeply, honestly. It's too subtle.
I remember in Oregon when the fight was to get the shall issue permits. The law had some minor gun contol item which was not a real inconvenience but the progun folks added shall issue (a much bigger plus) to the bill and got it. The antis didn't catch on.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 27, 2011, 02:44 PM | #209 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
So I gather then that while the NRA backed the original version that went before the House, what is their position on the new version?
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
November 27, 2011, 04:31 PM | #210 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
From what I have read to date the NRA is still on board with support to the bill. I don't see the NRA getting egg on the face so I think they will remain loyal to the bill, whether right or wrong. Just my opinion on that. If this goes through at some point the feds will have access to a data base, (same as LE ) with regards to permits and then they will KNOW who in America owns guns. If anyone thinks this bill is good for gun owners and those who CC then these same must think that Obama care is the greatest thing since slice bread. We all know how thats going. Read the bill, I don't have the time or lawyers, we'll find out whats in the bill after its passed. Just look at the nightmare the states are having trying to repeal it. Lower court judges are saying all is good. Are you willing to try your right to CC if this bill passes and the proverbial hits the fan?
This is all my view point. If folks are thinking this is the magic bullet I will have to state they are sadly mistaken
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
November 27, 2011, 05:47 PM | #211 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
so basically in your part of tin foil America(referring to your location icon), those that support this bill are healthcare supporters? personally, I could care less who knows I own guns, but that is a separate issue that I do not believe but obviously would be against. If they did that or do that, this bill has nothing to do with it. This bill is about a legal CCWer and gun owner having easier access throughout the country when he/she carries. In my opinion, gun rights have been going in the right direction for some years now. That will not last forever. The antis are working 24/7 to sway things around...they want Nothing to do with this bill. Period. I am glad that many of you have no say in this.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 27, 2011, 06:03 PM | #212 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
Quote:
However, letting the camel stick it's nose in the tent is fraught with real and potential issues, not the least of which is the Feds trampling on states rights to implement this bill against the protest of several states. Abrograting states rights is a great danger to freedom in this nation. The constitution is a document that limited the power the of the Federal government and worked in concert with the states who had much greater delegated powers at the onset. So few folks have any clue what the 10th amendment is all about, states rights pure and simple. Since this is not a 2A bill and it tramples states rights of self determination on these issues, it is a grave and present danger to our CCW freedoms in the long run. I would truly like to know how this bill will benefit you personally. |
|
November 27, 2011, 07:23 PM | #213 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
That will be the true test of this bill. If he does Veto it it is a good bill. If he doesn't veto it , it is a bad bill. |
|
November 27, 2011, 07:52 PM | #214 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
There is a path to this through the courts. The NRA knows this. They also know that this bill stands no chance of passage. As Glenn said, it's a statement. It's also a clever way of feeling out the attitude of legislators on the 2nd Amendment. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
November 27, 2011, 07:56 PM | #215 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
As Al Norris has so exceptionally pointed out, this is NOT a 2A case, but instead a Commerce clause case that dramatically extends Federal power at the expense of states rights. Playing with fire, some times you get burned. why play with this at all, it is not worth it. In addition, why now when we are on the verge of winning some incredible court cases that will accomplish more than this bill ever could hope to accomplish.
Stay the course. |
November 28, 2011, 02:18 AM | #216 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
guys yo can pick apart stuff until mars has a colony. Some people need to be heard and listened to. This isn't an argument you can win, this is a forum for firearms. I'll stand toe to toe with 400 members. Multiple people are starting to repeat questions, and I have been misremembered on what I said. Now, I am not 'suicidal', I don't want to go up agnst 400.
Yes, Al has some great points; I would also like to train as his "Grasshopper" someday. Progress is sometimes 2 steps forward & 1 step back...constant vigilence. This bill doesn't drastically help my CCW rights in even the least bit really.(I am not a major benefitter of this bill). I am speaking - right or wrong, naively or with a superb 6th sense - in the light of the bigger picture that I see(Don, I might need to borrow some tinfoil in all honesty). I believe it is the right thing, and I believe that some people just argue w/the federal government for their own reasons/beliefs. The states are the states, but the fed govt ahs its place too. This CCW issue in America is chopped to bits. Why the heck do you see so many people nervous about guns, carrying when its legal, man with a gun calls, and "major incidents" even when the CCWer is legal? How many posts do you read here but can I travel w/gun, can I put gun in car, can I carry here, does my permit cover me? I know, I know, you think it is a farce and if this bill passes it won't mean squat. The CCW needs to grow and develop. I grew up with no guns, and I have grown up, have a family, pay my taxes, and have my guns. We gun users and gun advocates are a stereotyped, misjudged 'society'(I grew up wondering how Charlton Heston was seduced by the darkside and NRA//HUH?!). This country needs to lay down the law and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons across America. It will protect you if something happens if you are in the scope of your law.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 28, 2011, 02:28 AM | #217 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
I haven't seen any indication that this bill will reduce the complexity of travel and may actually become worse by response from anti-gun states and more restrictive CCW rules. If there is limited benefit and great risk, it should be something we pass on. Not sure who the 400 against one are, but that is not really the point. Al has done a great job looking at this issue and I am grateful for his due diligence.
No one disputes CCW benefits, but we truly must understand that there are many that feel equally miffed with this right and want to limit it. I wouldn't put anything past them in their attempts. Again, I don't believe anyone is picking on anyone else, just agreeing to disagree. Last edited by Alaska444; November 28, 2011 at 02:34 AM. |
November 28, 2011, 02:48 AM | #218 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
PS- I was being serious about Al. Al teaches me a lot and Al's knowledeg is a level above mine on many TFL subjects&law cases. I was a 'grasshopper' once before(joking about the old show: "Kung Fu" w/david carradine). Actually I take that back. That is what I called my boss...not sure why since he was the expert(I think he called me that 1st and then the name stuck with him after when he took a chance on me). He voluntarily followed his career to CA. all the best
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|
November 28, 2011, 06:56 AM | #219 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
I have to say that I was one of those who wholeheartedly supported this bill at first. In light of some of the posts by others however, I have reason to pause. Not so much for the anti-government posts, but more for answers to specific questions asked and answered. Citing actual truth in black and white, not speculation on what could happen, helps win or at least gives a credible argument to a position. Al and Glenn's posts have been informative,not solely opinionated. Am I against this bill? No. But I am more wary of the outcome based on the new wording in the bill which was provided by Al.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
November 28, 2011, 10:23 AM | #220 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
First of all, thank you, Al Norris, for some very astute and well-informed analysis. I am a lawyer, but I honestly don't think I could have put together a better analysis. Well done, Al.
youngunz4life -- I've seen the word "naive" pop up in your posts several times since I used it. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. I don't think that everyone who supports this bill, nor even that you, specifically, are naive. I apologize if I've offended you. What I think is naive is the belief that the federal government could not, and will not, ever tack national CCW standards onto this bill. I think it would be equally naive to think that a future, anti-gun majority in Congress would not do things like mandating the creation of a national CCL database, or dream up other measures that will have the effect of reducing our 2A rights. Are those limitations in the bill right now? No. Do I think that, if this passes, some representative in the near future will start trying to get them put in? Absolutely. The federal government does have its place, but this isn't it. The possible benefits are too speculative and too small to support the risk. I would get little or no benefit from the passage of HR 822. According to handgunlaw.us and the Arkansas State Police website, my permit is already recognized through reciprocity in 38 States. With one or two exceptions, I have no current plans to travel to any of the other 12. This bill could help some gun owners in the more restrictive states. On the other hand, it could also hurt them, in that a restrictive state could simply ban CC altogether, exempting itself from the operation of HR 822. Even if it does work out to help citizens in the restrictive states, the bill invites the feds to meddle in areas that are traditionally handled at the State level, IMHO. I also still maintain that something akin to the Driver's License Compact would be a good way to go. That would handle the matter at the state level. If changes need to be made to the standards for issuing CHCLs in my state, then they'll be made by someone to whom my vote counts. Given that my state has reciprocity with 38 others, I don't think it'd be that hard to get the American Bar Association to put something together. (I think that's who drafts the model codes, anyway.) As for NRA support, well, . . . the NRA is a single-issue organization. I am not a single-issue voter. In addition to the fact that this is a firearms issue, I also see it as an unwarranted expansion of federal power, which bothers me. That, however, is a totally different discussion. While I often agree with the NRA's position, I do not in this case. When I was in law school and taking Con Law, I don't even remember talking about the 2A. I suspect the lecture went something like this: "The Second Amendment. It's about guns. Now, on to the Third . . . " From my perspective, the 2A has been absolutely on fire at SCOTUS the last few years, and it's been pretty exciting. We (as gun owners) have come too far and seen too much accomplished to let this bill pass, which could moot out some of the 2A cases. At the risk of sounding trite, a decision from SCOTUS that says "carry outside the home is a fundamental, individual right" would absolutely rock the anti-gun strongholds at their very foundations. If we get a decision like that, lots of the restrictive regulations out there will be overturned.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 28, 2011, 10:47 AM | #221 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Quote:
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
|
November 28, 2011, 11:42 AM | #222 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Unpalatable" is a nice way of putting it. I would not have been so kind. Another alternative is to start working on reciprocity between your state and those in which you travel (which I'm sure you already know). For the most restrictive states, there is little or no hope, but the remedy to that is at the ballot box. I know that it sucks to hear that, and y'all who have to deal with the restrictive states absolutely have my sympathy.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
November 28, 2011, 12:08 PM | #223 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Quote:
I bet a poll of forum members would prefer a SCOTUS decision overwhelmingly, so I don't think that is even debatable. But as of right now, there isn't a case before them that we are waiting for in terms of right to carry being constitutional is there? As of this moment, I am going to shoot an E-mail to my Congressman (Dem I might add) who voted in favor of HR822 to ask why we haven't worked on reciprocity BEFORE this bill came to a vote. This was a response to a question asked of him by myself on HR822 Quote:
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
||
November 28, 2011, 01:11 PM | #224 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Edited to add: The possibility that other states might prohibit CC and, in so doing, might effectively opt out of 822 is of smaller concern to me than having the feds decide that uniformity is needed, though. I'm much more concerned about the implementation of federal CCL standards.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; November 28, 2011 at 01:19 PM. |
||
November 28, 2011, 01:44 PM | #225 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
|
Another question as to the SCOTUS ruling on a constitutional right to carry. If such a ruling were to come down, does that not open a whole new can of worms? This could mean that my constitutional right to carry could trump states rights in regards to where they say I could not carry in said state no? Just a thought.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949 Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|