Contact your representative now for ccw - Page 2

Hardcase · November 15, 2011, 03:50 PM

According to the House floor calendar, H. Res 463, was approved by a vote of 271-153. The breakdown was all Republicans and 35 Democrats in favor, 153 Democrats opposed, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats did not vote.

It establishes the conditions of debate for HR822. I have no idea when HR822 will come up for debate, but it won't be today.

C0untZer0 · November 15, 2011, 09:58 PM

I have already said that I don't like this bill, but what I would like Illinois' Governor Pat Quinn and all the other anti-Second Amendment politicians in Illinois to feel is tide of pro-gun sentiment and I want them to beleive that if they don't pass the Illinois carry law, it will be forced upon them anyway, so they should craft a bill at the state level.

I just want them to hear the voice of the citizens of Ilinois and the majority opinion of the people who demand their Second Amendment rights.

JustThisGuy · November 16, 2011, 01:35 AM

Please everyone note that states like Illinois should be thrilled with this legislation. Because the bill requires CHL holders from other states to abide by the laws of the state they are visiting, CHL holders would NOT be permitted to carry a concealed handgun at all in a state like Illinois, which effectively allows no one to carry a concealed handgun in the state.

Arguably, a state like California could require that CHL holders be individually approved by a California state approval board, thus nullifying the CHL permits of other states.

Crazy88Fingers · November 16, 2011, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Arguably, a state like California could require that CHL holders be individually approved by a California state approval board, thus nullifying the CHL permits of other states.

If I recall correctly, the local sheriffs already approve individual CHLs in California. Either way, it seems like this bill would make the CHLs of other states completely valid in California. That is, after all, the point.

ltc444 · November 16, 2011, 06:54 AM

At this time this bill is a wast of time and hot air. It will not pass the senate and Obama will veto.

Expend your efforts on getting progun legislators and a progun president elected. Once that happens then use your chips to pass a uniform Carry law.

Patriot86 · November 16, 2011, 08:30 AM

Let Obama and the democrats from places like Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida and Nevada go on the record as being anti gun. It will be another nail in their political coffins. I know this may be mostly a symbolical vote but atleast it is an issue that will clearly show the American people where their politicians stand on the issue of the 2A and CC.

Don P · November 16, 2011, 09:21 AM

If this bill passes SCOTUS will be useless in gun rights cases in my opinion. We are better off without this bill again my opinion

icedog88 · November 16, 2011, 10:00 AM

Perhaps to some, it will prove beneficial. Anyone watch it on C-SPAN yesterday?

Hardcase · November 16, 2011, 02:03 PM

Debate is going on right now. Turn on your TV or fire up the Interwebs.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

C0untZer0 · November 16, 2011, 02:46 PM

It's clear that this bill will not force states like Illinois to allow carry.

And as Holt stated, it may motivate states like California to imitate Illinois as the only way to maintain control of their gun laws.

C0untZer0 · November 16, 2011, 02:59 PM

Rep Bob Woodall basically said what I've said previously:

The bill is either constitutional or it's unconstitutional.

If it is constitutional then it's unecesary since all the states would have to eventually adhere to some similar standard - the same way that Miranda rights cannot vary radically from state to state.

GI Sandv · November 16, 2011, 03:02 PM

Rob Woodall from Georgia's 7th District is my new hero. I think his arguments were spot on. While there seems to be consensus among many on this forum that this legislation won't make it past the Senate, I still dislike the whole idea.

This debate has also convinced me that, while the Court can be abused as a vehicle to accomplish what can't be accomplished legislatively, it's role here is essential. As Rob Woodall said, if the 2nd Amendment provides me the right to carry my weapon from state to state, then the 2nd Amendment is enough and no new federal legislation is needed. If it doesn't provide that right, then leave it to the states. I think it does provide that right, but let the Court declare limits like those in Illinois unconstitutional. This is their proper role in our federal system. Our 2nd Amendment rights come from the Constitution, not the federal legislature. The Supreme Court has the right, and it is their role, to interpret the Constitution and, where necessary, strike down unconstitutional laws, even when those laws are passed by a state. However, this right doesn't extend to the Congress. So let Congress stay out of this one and if need be, let the Supreme Court discuss the legality of Iliinois' blanket ban and other similarly restrictive laws in places like New Jersey and California.

Or, better yet, let the states come to this on their own.

Hardcase · November 16, 2011, 03:21 PM

Both Representatives Woodall and Lamar Smith have raised excellent points.

As GI Sandv pointed out, Woodall's contention that either the Second Amendment applies in this case or it does not. If it applies, the law is unnecessary. If it does not, then it is unconstitutional.

But Smith pointed out that the camel's nose is already under the tent, so to speak. The federal government has already allowed certain classes of law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in all states...is there a valid reason to not expand that to all law abiding citizens?

I'm also struck by the hypocrisy on both sides regarding the states' rights issue.

Personally, I would much rather see this issue resolved in the same way that driver's licenses were.

alloy · November 16, 2011, 03:38 PM

Did Hank Johnson just say there were 89 victims here?
http://www.azfamily.com/news/national/126450163.html
Guam teeters.

Hardcase · November 16, 2011, 03:45 PM

There's a ton of wildly inaccurate information floating around the lower chamber this afternoon, from both sides. Not that that's something new, of course.

Let me also add that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee is nuts. Wow.

maestro pistolero · November 16, 2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Or, better yet, let the states come to this on their own.

Many have, some may, and others never will without a heavy back-handing. I don't believe the idea of congress passing laws to require adherence to the constitution is outside their purview. If we get two branches on board, the third, executive branch will be compelled to acquiesce.

alloy · November 16, 2011, 04:15 PM

Obviously more than a few want the ability to micromanage this, after the fact.
The foot in the door.

icedog88 · November 16, 2011, 04:16 PM

Hardcase, I COMPLETELY agree about Jackson Lee! Also it was stated there were 89 victims to the shooting. How did THAT go unnoticed or unchallenged?

alloy · November 16, 2011, 04:19 PM

I guess everyone on the premises was a victim of gun violence.
If that's how firearm statistics are routinely used, holy cow.

Hardcase · November 16, 2011, 05:24 PM

As far as I can tell the arguments come down to this (valid or not):

For the opponents:
1. Violent criminals have easy access to concealed weapons permits
2. States' rights are inviolable
3. Guns kill people
4. Think of the children

For the proponents:
1. Only law abiding citizens have access to concealed weapons permits
2. States are free to control concealed carry
3. There's only one Second Amendment
4. Think of the children

Also, after watching today's proceedings, I suspect that if all Americans spent an afternoon watching a day of debate in Congress, they'd draw the conclusions that their representatives stand around and don't do much for their pay and that they can't follow simple directions. It's been a while since I watched CSPAN and I guess that I forgot.

oneounceload · November 16, 2011, 05:28 PM

Then there are these folks:

I do not mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it

OR

I DO mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it

Where YOU stand is a personal decision

American Made · November 16, 2011, 05:54 PM

Personally, I'd much rather have the Federal Government honor CCW permits on 'federal' property. I can carry my firearm inside my local police station, not the post office..etc? And that post office is within the Boundaries of my State.

I'd much rather rid ourselves of the thousands of unconstitutional federal gun laws. Remember when the States ratified the Constitution..., they asked for a 'Bill of rights' first. This was the guarantee against FEDERAL laws.

Inviting the Wolf over for yet another bite should scare the hell out of ya.

Our CCW process is very simple here, will it be this way if FEDZILLA has their
way? Will they take away the CCW holders exceptions from needless checks?

Where are the Founding fathers when we need them?? What would they do? They'd must likely say that protecting ones self is a natural right and cannot be regulated by anyone, let alone the very governments that were supposed to protect our rights.

And you can't "vote with your feet" if we keep nationalizing everything under the sun. Voting with your feet is what made our form of government so good. Well, back when it was the Republic of old..

C0untZer0 · November 16, 2011, 06:09 PM

I heard Hank Johnson say that too...

I just rolled my eyes.

I'm so used to the crazy "statistics" they throw out, it doesn't faze me anymore...

Like when they quote the number of "shooting victims" - criminals shot by law enforcement are included in the statistics

maestro pistolero · November 16, 2011, 06:46 PM

Now for the real hurdle.

therealdeal · November 16, 2011, 07:15 PM

ask any LEO if they think it is a bad idea that LEOSA passed

and to think that many men and women served their entire careers without the ability to cross state lines OR even carry in their home state

November 15, 2011, 03:50 PM	#26
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	According to the House floor calendar, H. Res 463, was approved by a vote of 271-153. The breakdown was all Republicans and 35 Democrats in favor, 153 Democrats opposed, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats did not vote. It establishes the conditions of debate for HR822. I have no idea when HR822 will come up for debate, but it won't be today. __________________ 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

November 16, 2011, 01:35 AM	#28
JustThisGuy Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2010 Posts: 311	Please everyone note that states like Illinois should be thrilled with this legislation. Because the bill requires CHL holders from other states to abide by the laws of the state they are visiting, CHL holders would NOT be permitted to carry a concealed handgun at all in a state like Illinois, which effectively allows no one to carry a concealed handgun in the state. Arguably, a state like California could require that CHL holders be individually approved by a California state approval board, thus nullifying the CHL permits of other states. __________________ JustThisGuy Mediocrity dominates over excellence in all things... except excellence.

November 16, 2011, 09:21 AM	#32
Don P Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2005 Location: Swamp dweller Posts: 6,187	If this bill passes SCOTUS will be useless in gun rights cases in my opinion. We are better off without this bill again my opinion __________________ *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 16, 2011, 10:00 AM	#33
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Perhaps to some, it will prove beneficial. Anyone watch it on C-SPAN yesterday? __________________ "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 16, 2011, 02:03 PM	#34
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	Debate is going on right now. Turn on your TV or fire up the Interwebs. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/ __________________ 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

November 15, 2011, 09:58 PM	#27
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I have already said that I don't like this bill, but what I would like Illinois' Governor Pat Quinn and all the other anti-Second Amendment politicians in Illinois to feel is tide of pro-gun sentiment and I want them to beleive that if they don't pass the Illinois carry law, it will be forced upon them anyway, so they should craft a bill at the state level. I just want them to hear the voice of the citizens of Ilinois and the majority opinion of the people who demand their Second Amendment rights.

November 16, 2011, 06:54 AM	#30
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,195	At this time this bill is a wast of time and hot air. It will not pass the senate and Obama will veto. Expend your efforts on getting progun legislators and a progun president elected. Once that happens then use your chips to pass a uniform Carry law.

November 16, 2011, 08:30 AM	#31
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	Let Obama and the democrats from places like Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida and Nevada go on the record as being anti gun. It will be another nail in their political coffins. I know this may be mostly a symbolical vote but atleast it is an issue that will clearly show the American people where their politicians stand on the issue of the 2A and CC.

November 16, 2011, 02:46 PM	#35
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	It's clear that this bill will not force states like Illinois to allow carry. And as Holt stated, it may motivate states like California to imitate Illinois as the only way to maintain control of their gun laws.

November 16, 2011, 02:59 PM	#36
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Rep Bob Woodall basically said what I've said previously: The bill is either constitutional or it's unconstitutional. If it is constitutional then it's unecesary since all the states would have to eventually adhere to some similar standard - the same way that Miranda rights cannot vary radically from state to state.

November 16, 2011, 03:02 PM	#37
GI Sandv Member Join Date: December 16, 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 65	C-Span Coverage Rob Woodall from Georgia's 7th District is my new hero. I think his arguments were spot on. While there seems to be consensus among many on this forum that this legislation won't make it past the Senate, I still dislike the whole idea. This debate has also convinced me that, while the Court can be abused as a vehicle to accomplish what can't be accomplished legislatively, it's role here is essential. As Rob Woodall said, if the 2nd Amendment provides me the right to carry my weapon from state to state, then the 2nd Amendment is enough and no new federal legislation is needed. If it doesn't provide that right, then leave it to the states. I think it does provide that right, but let the Court declare limits like those in Illinois unconstitutional. This is their proper role in our federal system. Our 2nd Amendment rights come from the Constitution, not the federal legislature. The Supreme Court has the right, and it is their role, to interpret the Constitution and, where necessary, strike down unconstitutional laws, even when those laws are passed by a state. However, this right doesn't extend to the Congress. So let Congress stay out of this one and if need be, let the Supreme Court discuss the legality of Iliinois' blanket ban and other similarly restrictive laws in places like New Jersey and California. Or, better yet, let the states come to this on their own. __________________ 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.

November 16, 2011, 03:21 PM	#38
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	Both Representatives Woodall and Lamar Smith have raised excellent points. As GI Sandv pointed out, Woodall's contention that either the Second Amendment applies in this case or it does not. If it applies, the law is unnecessary. If it does not, then it is unconstitutional. But Smith pointed out that the camel's nose is already under the tent, so to speak. The federal government has already allowed certain classes of law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in all states...is there a valid reason to not expand that to all law abiding citizens? I'm also struck by the hypocrisy on both sides regarding the states' rights issue. Personally, I would much rather see this issue resolved in the same way that driver's licenses were. __________________ 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

November 16, 2011, 03:45 PM	#40
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	There's a ton of wildly inaccurate information floating around the lower chamber this afternoon, from both sides. Not that that's something new, of course. Let me also add that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee is nuts. Wow. __________________ 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 Last edited by Hardcase; November 16, 2011 at 03:59 PM.

November 16, 2011, 04:16 PM	#43
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Hardcase, I COMPLETELY agree about Jackson Lee! Also it was stated there were 89 victims to the shooting. How did THAT go unnoticed or unchallenged? __________________ "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 16, 2011, 05:24 PM	#45
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	As far as I can tell the arguments come down to this (valid or not): For the opponents: 1. Violent criminals have easy access to concealed weapons permits 2. States' rights are inviolable 3. Guns kill people 4. Think of the children For the proponents: 1. Only law abiding citizens have access to concealed weapons permits 2. States are free to control concealed carry 3. There's only one Second Amendment 4. Think of the children Also, after watching today's proceedings, I suspect that if all Americans spent an afternoon watching a day of debate in Congress, they'd draw the conclusions that their representatives stand around and don't do much for their pay and that they can't follow simple directions. It's been a while since I watched CSPAN and I guess that I forgot. __________________ 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

November 16, 2011, 05:28 PM	#46
oneounceload Junior member Join Date: April 18, 2008 Location: N. Central Florida Posts: 8,518	Then there are these folks: I do not mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it OR I DO mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it Where YOU stand is a personal decision

November 16, 2011, 05:54 PM	#47
American Made Member Join Date: September 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 92	Personally, I'd much rather have the Federal Government honor CCW permits on 'federal' property. I can carry my firearm inside my local police station, not the post office..etc? And that post office is within the Boundaries of my State. I'd much rather rid ourselves of the thousands of unconstitutional federal gun laws. Remember when the States ratified the Constitution..., they asked for a 'Bill of rights' first. This was the guarantee against FEDERAL laws. Inviting the Wolf over for yet another bite should scare the hell out of ya. Our CCW process is very simple here, will it be this way if FEDZILLA has their way? Will they take away the CCW holders exceptions from needless checks? Where are the Founding fathers when we need them?? What would they do? They'd must likely say that protecting ones self is a natural right and cannot be regulated by anyone, let alone the very governments that were supposed to protect our rights. And you can't "vote with your feet" if we keep nationalizing everything under the sun. Voting with your feet is what made our form of government so good. Well, back when it was the Republic of old.. Last edited by American Made; November 16, 2011 at 06:29 PM.

November 16, 2011, 06:09 PM	#48
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I heard Hank Johnson say that too... I just rolled my eyes. I'm so used to the crazy "statistics" they throw out, it doesn't faze me anymore... Like when they quote the number of "shooting victims" - criminals shot by law enforcement are included in the statistics

November 16, 2011, 06:46 PM	#49
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	HR822 Passed the House 273-151 Now for the real hurdle.

November 16, 2011, 07:15 PM	#50
therealdeal Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 627	ask any LEO if they think it is a bad idea that LEOSA passed and to think that many men and women served their entire careers without the ability to cross state lines OR even carry in their home state __________________ NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)