The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 27, 2011, 10:44 AM   #201
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
youngunz4life
Senior Member

guys, I just want to say that I have enjoyed this thread and discussion. I think this is just a powerful issue for me(and obviously others). I want you to all know I DO respect your opinions despite differences. I don't think it will be law, BUT I do believe in time a bill similar to this will pass. I am steadfast that it is a good thing and will be when it passes. I am not going to be able to change minds(or maybe I have just as some against it have done the same). It might not be the right time, but good things come to those who wait and it takes time and work to get things. I myself and having a hard time listening to some arguments here, and this thread is particular frustrating to me. oh well. I'm sortof seeing it like Icedog's last post.

And I don't think all the people for it are clueless and naive about the federal government. Do you?! States will have to adhere to the law when it passes. They will accept the law, and they will have no choice. If by some crazy nitch where they can work and wait to avoid it, basically nothing changes for the anti-state. My state will continue to be gun friendly. I can gurantee that as much as I can gurantee anything I guess. I think the frustration is because I know someday this will probably pass but that is by no means a certainty. I do know I would come back someday and admit my mistake if I was wrong & this law ended up being a bad thing when it passed. I do wonder how many people against it would have enough pride to swallow to do the same thing.
How can this bill get passed with out the support of the Gun control crowd?

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.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 10:56 AM   #202
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
icedog88
Senior Member

If this bill is such a trojan horse and will undo many advances made, why the resistance from the antis? Surely they would see these same opportunities as do those who are pro gun but anti HR822 in this forum. Why has the NRA backed a bill that would undermine essentially everything they stand for??
You question about NRA support is a good one.

Have you seen any comments by the NRA about why they think the commerce clause needs to be involved in the 2A?
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 12:48 PM   #203
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 01:03 PM   #204
icedog88
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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 01:19 PM   #205
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Today, 07:44 AM #201
Rusty35
Member

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.
A Trojan horse looks like a gift on the outside but is filled with destruction on the inside. With the states becoming more gun friendly and CCW friendly even in anti-gun states, they may be looking for a political gambit to do an end around the states rights that are granting us the CCW process.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 01:56 PM   #206
youngunz4life
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
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 02:21 PM   #207
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
  1. Section 2 of the original contained the findings of the Congress that the right to carry was part and parcel of the second amendment. That the Congress had the authority under the 14th amendment to ensure all States that allowed their citizens to carry, via a permit, that they allowed all visitors to their State, the same right.

    That entire section was eliminated in the passed version.
    .
  2. Section 3 of the original bill added Section 926(D) to Title 18 Chapter 44 of the U.S.C. This is now Section 2 of the passed bill.
    .
    1. Sec. 926(D)(b) of the original bill mandated that visitors carrying into another State were bound by that States laws.

      That section was eliminated.
      .
    2. Sec. 926(D)(c) of the original bill, declared that those States that imposed restrictions on their licenses, must honor out of State permits in the least restrictive manner authorized by State law.

      That section was eliminated.
      .
    3. Sec. 926(D)(d) of the original included a provision that nothing in this law could be construed to alter or change in any manner the way a State handled its own licensing or permitting laws.

      That section was eliminated. As noted in my previous post, an exception was added to the new 926(D)(b) that would, on the surface, do the same thing. However, there is nothing in that exception that would prevent the Federal Government to change/mandate/require/substitute a Federal law for a State law. The language of the eliminated section would have absolutely prevented such interference.
    .
  3. Sec 2(c) of the original bill contained a severability clause.

    That section was eliminated.
    .
  4. A new Section 3 was added: GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES’ CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
    1. The GAO is to study each States non-resident carry laws as to its effectiveness in maintaining the public safety.
      1. This "study" will come back as inconclusive, as no such study can be done (with 49 differing States) within the narrow time frame (see note "F," below).
    .
  5. A new Section 4 was added: GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIRE-ARMS PERMITS.
    1. The GAO is to study the effectiveness of local authorities to verify and validate out of State permits.
      1. This "study" will come back in the negative, as it would take the States more than a year (again, see note "F," below) to compile a database that any other State could access.
    .
  6. Both of the above GAO reports are to be submitted to the Congress within one year.
Because the Congress eliminated the Findings section, the Courts can (and will) conclude that there is no right to carry in the public. If the Congress believed that such a right existed, they would have retained that provision. They did not.

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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf BILLS-112hr822ih.pdf (165.4 KB, 3 views)
File Type: pdf BILLS-112hr822rfs.pdf (130.8 KB, 3 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 02:36 PM   #208
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 02:44 PM   #209
icedog88
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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 04:31 PM   #210
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,794
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 Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 05:47 PM   #211
youngunz4life
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
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 06:03 PM   #212
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 02:47 PM #211
youngunz4life
Senior Member

Join Date: November 15, 2010
Posts: 1,269
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
Perhaps the most profound statement yet in your posts. I agree, most of us will have no say in this despite our objections for very valid reasons. Unfortunately, special interests have much more say so in our current system than individuals speaking out against a true Trojan horse. I would further note that I believe you have stated that this bill will not change anything in your state nor in anti-gun states. That being true, what is it that makes you feel that this is a step in the right direction to have the Feds through the commerce clause enter into regulating CCW permits that are now currently done quite well in 43 out of our 50 states. This bill will provide absolutely no benefit to my personal situation.

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.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 07:23 PM   #213
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
youngunz4life
Senior Member

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
Do you think Obama is going to Veto this bill or not?

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.
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 07:52 PM   #214
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,335
Quote:
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.
So, you don't care if one of the possible emanations of the bill is a registry of CCW holders, as long as you get one thing you want as quickly as possible? We have to consider consequences here, and throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks doesn't help.

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:
The antis are working 24/7 to sway things around...they want Nothing to do with this bill. Period.
What, all twelve of them?

Quote:
I am glad that many of you have no say in this
You're assuming a great deal.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 07:56 PM   #215
Alaska444
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.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 02:18 AM   #216
youngunz4life
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
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 02:28 AM   #217
Alaska444
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.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 02:48 AM   #218
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Again, I don't believe anyone is picking on anyone else, just agreeing to disagree.
No, that is not what I meant, so I apologize if it came off that way. I was only joking, and there were a few posts in a row that quoted me, thats all. It is a good discussion - and as I mentioned a few posts ago - a little frustrating to me at times w/no hard feelings for TFL members. You might be right - again as I said originally way way back in this thread - there is only one way to know if I am right or wrong & that is when this bill or one similar can officially pass. It very well be that I will be like, 'wow, ALASKA and some others were right and warned me. I was frustrated because I wanted something that wasn't possible.' I don't think so though. I have seen what LEOSA has done; notice the HR#'s coincide with that bill somewhat. Off duty LEO can carry in Puerto Rico, Marianna Islands, Guam, anywhere in the US of A and its lands and waters.

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
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 06:56 AM   #219
icedog88
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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 10:23 AM   #220
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
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.
__________________
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 28, 2011, 10:47 AM   #221
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Quote:
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.
But isn't this essentially the reason so many of us wanted this bill to pass? Because we see this as later down the line, MAYBE? If this decision comes say 3 years from now, that's 3 years of not being able to protect ourselves, family, the way we want, in other states. As there hasn't been any movement or word from the SCOTUS on that fundamental right, with no timetable, this bill was our next best thing. As I said though, the NEW version causes concern, but the ORIGINAL would have been fine with us in and around more restrictive states. "Stay the course", has been something of a rallying cry from those whose states have reciprocity already. "Stay the course", for those in states without reciprocity means more of the same, which ain't all that palatable.
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 11:42 AM   #222
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
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.
But isn't this essentially the reason so many of us wanted this bill to pass? Because we see this as later down the line, MAYBE? If this decision comes say 3 years from now, that's 3 years of not being able to protect ourselves, family, the way we want, in other states. As there hasn't been any movement or word from the SCOTUS on that fundamental right, with no timetable, this bill was our next best thing.
You are correct. Either way, it's a maybe. Maybe Congress will pass HR 822, maybe SCOTUS will vindicate gun owners in the restrictive jurisdictions. But having SCOTUS declare that RKBA to be a fundamental individual right doesn't put the camel's nose under the tent the same way that this does. Having many states adopt a "Mutual Concealed Carry Compact" doesn't invite the federal government into state affairs, and accomplishes the same thing, without risking having a few states shut down CC altogether to get themselves out of 822. If you'd like, I'll be glad to see if I can figure out who at the ABA would draft such a beast and post their contact information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog88
As I said though, the NEW version causes concern, but the ORIGINAL would have been fine with us in and around more restrictive states. "Stay the course", has been something of a rallying cry from those whose states have reciprocity already. "Stay the course", for those in states without reciprocity means more of the same, which ain't all that palatable.
The old version also included language that would have allowed a State to simply prohibit any and all CC, which would have simply meant that nobody could CC there. Period. HR 822 would not have affected those states, in either form. States don't get to opt out of a SCOTUS decision.

"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.
__________________
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 28, 2011, 12:08 PM   #223
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Quote:
The old version also included language that would have allowed a State to simply prohibit any and all CC, which would have simply meant that nobody could CC there. Period. HR 822 would not have affected those states, in either form.
But realistically, not theoretically, can you honestly say that a state would do that knowing that the lawmakers voting for such would face being voted out? I may have missed it during the hearings, but I don't remember any state threatening this.
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:
Dear ,

Thank you for contacting me regarding concealed firearms. I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.

On February 20, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which would require states to provide reciprocity for individuals to carry a concealed firearm if they are allowed in a different state. You may be interested to know that I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which was approved by the House of Representatives on November 16, 2011 by a vote of 272 – 154 – in fact, I was one of only 43 Democrats to support the bill's passage. H.R. 822, which will ensure that the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners will be protected when they cross state lines, now moves to the United States Senate for further consideration.

As I mentioned before, I do believe there are situations where the federal government should act to protect fundamental gun ownership rights. One recent example was the Supreme Court ruling of Heller vs. District of Columbia that addressed the District of Columbia gun ban. I was the only member of the Connecticut congressional delegation to sign onto the congressional amicus brief in the case of District of Columbia v. Dick Heller, which supported the right of individuals in the District of Columbia to be able to keep firearms in their homes. I believe that this is a fundamental right and was pleased when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Heller in their landmark legal decision. You may also be interested to know that recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states as well. I was the only member of the Connecticut Congressional Delegation to sign the Congressional Amicus Brief in support of law abiding gun owners in this historic case. I believe strongly that an individual's Second Amendment rights must be protected, and that the rights afforded to individuals by the Bill of Rights must be respected and protected.

I have also supported legislation which seeks to protect the rights of gun owners across the country. I am a strong proponent of H. R. 420, the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act of 2011. This bill allows former servicemembers legally to keep firearms collected during wartime as a souvenir and to pass them along to family members. You will also be interested to know that I was the only member of the Connecticut congressional delegation to support the "Coburn amendment," which allows law abiding gun owners to carry firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges where permitted by state law. This amendment was added to H. R. 627, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009.

As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am strong supporter of hunters and sportsmen. I cosponsored a House Resolution 270 in the 111th Congress which recognizes the importance of Hunters for the Hungry and the work they do to provide decrease hunger and provide food for those in need. This resolution recognizes the importance of hunters to our country and our communities.

Again, thank you for sharing your views on this issue with me. Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. For more information on my work in Congress, please visit my website at courtney.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter at courtney.house.gov/forms/emailsignup. You can also connect with me at facebook.com/joecourtney or receive updates from twitter.com/connecticutjoe.



Sincerely,

JOE COURTNEY
Member of Congress
__________________
"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]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 01:11 PM   #224
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by icedog88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
The old version also included language that would have allowed a State to simply prohibit any and all CC, which would have simply meant that nobody could CC there. Period. HR 822 would not have affected those states, in either form.
But realistically, not theoretically, can you honestly say that a state would do that knowing that the lawmakers voting for such would face being voted out? I may have missed it during the hearings, but I don't remember any state threatening this.
I haven't watched the hearings, but I also can't remember anyone saying that states had threatened to entirely block CC. (That may not help my argument, but it's the truth.) With that said, my crystal ball is a little foggy these days, but yes, I do honestly believe that some states might simply prohibit CC. That's one of the simplest ways to get out of having all those pesky CCers from getting to carry in your state (at least in the short run). Here's the rub: The lawmakers who would vote to ban CC outright . . . probably do not face a significant risk of being voted out of office. Remember, they live in jurisdictions where control has been, and is, still accepted. Changing those laws is a slow, messy process, and in your case, it's a matter of trying to change the laws of a neighboring state. That's even messier.

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.
__________________
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

Last edited by Spats McGee; November 28, 2011 at 01:19 PM.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 28, 2011, 01:44 PM   #225
icedog88
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]
icedog88 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 06:01 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 0.16495 seconds with 8 queries