The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 14, 2011, 09:34 AM   #1
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
Contact your representative now for ccw

See the attached link. This bill is coming up for a House vote today. Contact your Rep TODAY and tell them you SUPPORT inter-state concealed carry and full reciprocity across the 50 states.


National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Scheduled for
House Floor on Tuesday—Contact Your U.S. Representative Immediately!
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=7169

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.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 09:39 AM   #2
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
i've emailed mine already however pointless it is...

damn new jersey
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 11:17 AM   #3
Crazy88Fingers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 940
It still makes me nervous whenever Congress starts thinking up new laws, and I'm a bit apprehensive about this one. Although I already live in a gun-friendly state.
__________________
"And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44"
-Lynyrd Skynyrd
Crazy88Fingers is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 11:49 AM   #4
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
I'm divided on this law. (H.R. 822). Is it a Trojan Horse?

Will it mean the Feds will set rules for concealed carry? Will it allow the Attorney Generel to obtain a list of each state's concealed permit holders?

Will it require unreasonable, costly training, making CCW a rich man's right?

Will it tell us what to carry, or how many rounds, what type of rounds?

I would love to see each state reconizing every other state's permit, or better yet, no permit required anywhere, but I don't know if I trust the federal government on this issue.

I'd like to see some safe guards in the law that would protect the states. I hate to see the fed's requirments for the states to issue CC permits.

It's easier to control our laws on a local level then to control them on a federal level. I'm afraid H.R. 822 will put all the rules for CCW in the federal hands where we have less control.

Frankly I just don't know.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 11:54 AM   #5
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,238
I would rather see H.R. 950 get through. But, at this point, the small victory may be better than none at all.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 12:16 PM   #6
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I don't like this law, but I think it's good to keep the pressure on the anit-gun lobby.

Hopefully while the ninnies over at the Brady Campaigne run around all in a tizzy over this, they'll divert their efforts from Illinois and we can get a CCW bill passed at the state level.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 12:55 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,650
I still think a Supreme Court decision affirming a right to carry is a more worthwhile (and effective) goal.

Under HR 822, states may choose to simply "opt out" of compliance by refusing to issue permits at all.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 01:03 PM   #8
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
I think that this will be a giant step backwards. Look at where we have come since FL issued CCWs in 1987. We are winning the battle state by state. Stay the course, stay the course and keep the FEDS out of our CCW permit system!!
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 02:06 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,702
Sigh.

If passed, this law would not -- I repeat, WOULD NOT -- involve the Feds in any state's carry permit system. ALL this law would do is require each state to recognize carry licenses/permits issued by any other state. That's something that should already be happening under the provisions of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
A marriage license is no more and no less a public act or record than a carry license. So why do all states recognize marriage licenses from other states (and other countries), but not carry licenses?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 02:52 PM   #10
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 69
I have to agree with Tom Servo; the way the court cases are stacking up, I think the way to go is through the courts. I don't want to lose momentum now.
Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor
NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:17 PM   #11
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
It's hard not to like a bill that Frank Lautenberg and Carolyn McCarthy hate:


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...o-gun-measure/
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:37 PM   #12
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Aren't most states already (for the most part) already recognizing each others permit?

Sure, some states don't play well with others, but not to the extent that this is needed. What we need is legislation opening up states such as MD, IL, and NJ...that would impress me.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:44 PM   #13
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I like this as a tactic to put pressure on the anti-gun lobby.

As a real bill, I think it violates states rights and I don't want to give the federal government any more power over firearms than they already have.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:49 PM   #14
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 12:37 PM #12
Carry_24/7
Senior Member

Join Date: June 5, 2011
Location: Florida (home), Overseas (work)
Posts: 551
Aren't most states already (for the most part) already recognizing each others permit?

Sure, some states don't play well with others, but not to the extent that this is needed. What we need is legislation opening up states such as MD, IL, and NJ...that would impress me.
On another thread about a month ago, I believe Al Norris posted a map of all of the shall issue counties in the US. We are by far winning this war for CCW rights. Understanding that it only started in FL in 1987, we have come a long way baby in the last 25 years. We only have a few hold outs at this point.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 04:16 PM   #15
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
I'll pass on supporting this one. While it does not directly create any sort of federal licensing or registration system, I do think it opens doors that I prefer remain closed. If it passes, I do not think it will be long before the feds decide that federal licensing standards are in order.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 04:39 PM   #16
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
There are several major issues with this..

Many of us "Red Staters" have been trying to uphold the true meaning of federalism. This ( like most federal laws ) violate the Founders intent. After all, we don't have a National Government - we have several States ( the people ) and their agent, the federal government. In Federalist #78, Hamilton wrote about THE 'fundamental principle of republican government', which 'admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.'

And in the Virginia ratification debates, one James Madison stated this, 'An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence.'

John Marshall reiterated that the powers can be resumed by the states, '[w]e are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.'

Marshall went further, stating that 'the people hold all powers in their own hands, and delegate them cautiously, for short periods, to their servants.' Not a perpetual delegation.

The more people look toward Nationalism as their cure, the more tyranny we end up with. The Founders understood this as fact! Keep the agent of the States within the Constitution..please!

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell
2 Feb. 1816

No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte. How powerfully did we feel the energy of this organization in the case of embargo? I felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships. There was not an individual in their States whose body was not thrown with all its momentum into action; and although the whole of the other States were known to be in favor of the measure, yet the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the Union. What would the unwieldy counties of the Middle, the South, and the West do? Call a county meeting, and the drunken loungers at and about the courthouses would have collected, the distances being too great for the good people and the industrious generally to attend. The character of those who really met would have been the measure of the weight they would have had in the scale of public opinion. As Cato, then, concluded every speech with the words, "Carthago delenda est," so do I every opinion, with the injunction, "divide the counties into wards." Begin them only for a single purpose; they will soon show for what others they are the best instruments. God bless you, and all our rulers, and give them the wisdom, as I am sure they have the will, to fortify us against the degeneracy of our government, and the concentration of all its powers in the hands of the one, the few, the well-born or the many.

Last edited by American Made; November 14, 2011 at 04:53 PM.
American Made is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 04:49 PM   #17
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
You might also want to write the president and urge him to sign it, too.

(I say this tongue in cheek - should it get a thumbs' up from the Senate, it will be dripping with VETO ink shortly thereafter, I'm afraid.)
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old November 14, 2011, 11:18 PM   #18
GI Sandv
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 65
Give 'Em an Inch...

Is anyone familiar with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? (This article explains it. Pay particular attention to paragraph 4.) It's in place in all 50 states currently. The benefit is that the states pass the laws (instead of the federal government) but they are also uniform in all 50 states. (Or pretty close to uniform).

So, why not do something similar with carry laws? The biggest issue tends to be the minimum re-quirements a state imposes on licensing. If a commission of people writing a recommended law like this were to establish a uniform minimum licensing standard, this would give the states a baseline from which they could begin discussions with one another. If the forty or so states that have some sort of licensing process agreed to accept any permit that met these minimum standards, then we could stop expending energy trying to get two “shall issue” states to recognize one another and instead turn all our attention on persuading those pernicious “may issue” states such as California or New York and the ever-obstinate Illinois to move in the direction of the rest of the country. All this without depending on—or being forced by—the federal government.

Of course, there would still be state-to-state issues such as whether or not a permit-holder is required to immediately inform a police officer of his status when pulled over for a routine traffic stop. And there would likely still be differences with whether a permit-holder can enter a drinking establishment, consume alcohol while carrying, etc. However, having a uniform basis by which we determine whether someone may or may not carry would be a great start. And if such a body were successful in establishing this baseline standard, perhaps they could also act as a uniform source for compiling and maintaining easily understood and clear state-by-state carry rules for those travelling out of their home state. Also, this would not in any way hinder states such as Alaska and Arizona who do not require a permit, but would make it easier (or at least no more difficult) for their residents’ to get licensed.

Having the federal government pass a law requiring each state to accept permits from every other states feels much more like compulsion, especially when we’re talking about a power that has traditionally been preserved for the states. As has been mentioned elsewhere, even if this law does not create a national licensing scheme, it sure seems to open the door for it. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which declared that no one may carry a weapon within 1000 feet of a school. The argument was essentially that this sort of issue belonged to the states individually. However, Congress learned from this and altered the language of that law in a minor way by adding a provision which gave Congress the authority under their commerce clause power. (They simply added the words “that has moved in or that otherwise
affects interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 USC § 922.) The point in all of this is that Congress was able to find a loophole, if you will, in their commerce clause power, to allow them to pass a law which addressed a topic which was not rightly theirs to address. Nonetheless, the law as (barely) modified has been upheld by numerous courts.

I’m afraid the desire to be able to carry in a neighboring state is leading people to push for unwise choices on this issue. I would like to be able to carry in Illinois, Texas, Colorado, etc. However, these states do not recognize my permit. Be that as it may, I would prefer to wait until these states choose to come on board because they have been persuaded that that is the best course of action for their people than that we rely on Congress to do this for us. Once we start asking Congress to help us carry our weapons, we start giving them the ability to tell us when, where, how and whether.
__________________
The state that too strictly distinguishes its warriors from its scholars will have its fighting done by cowards and its thinking done by fools.

Kahr PM9, Springfiled XD9, Browning BPS 12Ga., Browning SA-22.
GI Sandv is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 07:34 AM   #19
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
I’m afraid the desire to be able to carry in a neighboring state is leading people to push for unwise choices on this issue. I would like to be able to carry in Illinois, Texas, Colorado, etc. However, these states do not recognize my permit. Be that as it may, I would prefer to wait until these states choose to come on board because they have been persuaded that that is the best course of action for their people than that we rely on Congress to do this for us. Once we start asking Congress to help us carry our weapons, we start giving them the ability to tell us when, where, how and whether.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Very well said!

In entering the public service I took an oath to support the Constitution, which necessarily gives me a right to interpret it. Our institutions, according to my understanding, are founded upon the principle and right of self-government ( FEDERALISM )

In talking with several folks from California about this same issue. In restrictive States they look for answers from the federal branch. In places like Idaho or Utah we seek in restricting the watchful eye of big brother.

In Idaho our battle has always been with the federal variety of gun laws. Our sister State of Montana ( after the election of President Obama ) took the rights of it's residents at heart, told the fedgov to live by the constitution or else:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (“Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday).
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.
BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.

We ARE winning this battle State by State. If the States must live by the Constitution, then so does the FedGov. It cannot be binding on one, leaving the other with no limits on power.

Last edited by American Made; November 15, 2011 at 08:06 AM.
American Made is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 12:33 PM   #20
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,827
They be beating the drums loud on this. One of the few times I hope gun related legislation fails as Al has pointed out in the recent past we are better off without it and I agree. It will not do any of us any good in DC, NYC, Chicago and any other place/state/city that CCW is NOT issuing permits for.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 12:36 PM   #21
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,186
I told my Rep, a republican , if he voted yes for this after voting yes to renew the Patriot Act I would vote against him for reelection

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 01:37 PM   #22
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
A marriage license is no more and no less a public act or record than a carry license. So why do all states recognize marriage licenses from other states (and other countries), but not carry licenses?
All states do not recognize ALL marriage licenses from other states and other countries.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 01:57 PM   #23
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
interesting to get a view of gun control lobby tactics

Carolyn McCarthy intends to bring 15 victims of gun violence to the Capitol today.

http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-...y-be-governors
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 02:47 PM   #24
GI Sandv
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 65
I find it more than a little amusing that the anti-gun lobby is making our argument for us ("our" referring only to those who favor state laws in support of carrying, as opposed to federal laws.):

Quote:
“This policy removes the ability of your state to pass laws or regulations regarding armed visitors to your state and forces the citizens of your state to honor the policies of the government of another state over whom they have no electoral control or remedies for addressing ill-advised policies,” Rep. McCarthy wrote in her letter.
I wonder if in the end this is a win-win. That is, the anti-gun lobby shows how anti-gun it is, and this provides increased impetus to change state laws on the local level. If I were a governor being faced with this type of pressure, as well as some of the pending court challenges mentioned elsewhere in this forum, particularly by Al Norris (btw, thanks Al), I would strongly consider making concessions in some of my stricter gun laws in order to decrease outside criticism. If some of the states see the wind blowing in the opposite direction, maybe they'll jump on the bandwagon before they're forced to do so by the feds. Then again, this might be wishful thinking.
__________________
The state that too strictly distinguishes its warriors from its scholars will have its fighting done by cowards and its thinking done by fools.

Kahr PM9, Springfiled XD9, Browning BPS 12Ga., Browning SA-22.
GI Sandv is offline  
Old November 15, 2011, 03:00 PM   #25
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
'm divided on this law. (H.R. 822). Is it a Trojan Horse?

Will it mean the Feds will set rules for concealed carry? Will it allow the Attorney Generel to obtain a list of each state's concealed permit holders?

Will it require unreasonable, costly training, making CCW a rich man's right?

Will it tell us what to carry, or how many rounds, what type of rounds?

I would love to see each state reconizing every other state's permit, or better yet, no permit required anywhere, but I don't know if I trust the federal government on this issue.

I'd like to see some safe guards in the law that would protect the states. I hate to see the fed's requirments for the states to issue CC permits.

It's easier to control our laws on a local level then to control them on a federal level. I'm afraid H.R. 822 will put all the rules for CCW in the federal hands where we have less control.

Frankly I just don't know.
Agreed - is the camel sticking its nose under the tent? And MY rep is the one who wrote the bill
oneounceload is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.29505 seconds with 8 queries